Works

§. Was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.

Namely into the wilderness of Judea. For 1. that was in mention in the story next preceding, Matth. 3. 2, 3. and a wilderness being here spoken of, without any further mention what wilderness it was, none can so properly be understood as that of Judea, which was last named before. 2. It is said by Luke, that Jesus returned from Jordan: by the word returned, importing that he came back [when he went to his temptation] on the same side Jordan on which he was baptized: Now that the wilderness of Judea lay on that side is more evident than needeth any demonstration. Chemnitz indeed hath supposed this wilderness where our Savior was tempted, to have been the great desert of Horeb or Sinai: and he giveth these three reasons for it: 1. Because other wildernesses have their distinguishing titles, as of Ziph, 2 Sam. 23. 14. Shur, Exod. 15. 22. Engedi, 1 Sam. 24. 11. &c. but this wilderness of Horeb is called the wilderness, by a special emphasis, without any other addition, and so is the wilderness mentioned in this story. But this is easily answered, that it wants its distinctive title here, because it was named by it a little before, and called the wilderness of Judea.

2. Because saith he, Mark saith, that Christ in this wilderness was with the wild beasts: now in other wildernesses there are either dwellings of men here and there, or they are not altogether remote from the converse of men; but in the great desert of Horeb there were only wild beasts, as there are mentioned to have been here.

Ans. Mark when he saith, Christ was with wild beasts, doth not therefore enforce that that wilderness was without either men or dwellings; But first, That Christ for that time avoided both the one and the other, and kept himself in the wildest places, and most retired from human society. And secondly the Evangelist seemeth to regard rather the state of Christ, than the state of the place: and to show Christ to be the second Adam, as in the temptation which he was now about, so in his safety and security among the wild beasts [as Adam in innocence had been] and they hurt him not. The wilderness of Judea had indeed both cities, and villages, and dwellings of men in it, but withal it had some places wild in it without any such habitations, and it had wild beasts in it in those places, 1 Sam. 17. 28. 34. 2 Sam. 23. 20. Jer. 49. 19.

3. By this supposal [he addeth] that this wilderness where Christ was tempted, was the great desert of Horeb, there is a fair answerableness found out, between this story, and the story of Israel in that place, and betwixt this fasting of Christ and of Moses and Elias in the same desert. Answer: it is true, there would be so indeed, but the being of the thing cannot be grounded upon this correspondency, but this correspendency must be built upon the thing first found so to be: and if this may argue for Horeb desert, we may as well argue for Judea wilderness, for there the sore trials of David under the persecution of his enemies, and otherwise may be as fit parallels to harmonize with this temptation, as Israel's being in that desert, see 1 Sam. 17. 34 & 23. 14, 19, 24. & 24. 1. Psalm 61. in title, &c.

For these forty days together, Satan was tempting him invisibly, and did not yet assume any visible or conspicuous shape, which at the end of forty days he did; and so is Matthew to be understood, when he saith, The tempter came to him, that is, in an apparent and visible form.

Now if we look upon the time and place, and Christ's present posture, we may see what materials or occasions the Devil had to frame these his invisible temptations of, all this while.

• 1. The time of the year, was from about the middle of the month Tisri, six weeks forward, that is, from the beginning of our October, till about the tenth of our November, and then was the cold increasing, the nights growing long, and the winter driving on apace; but very comfortless subsisting in the open plan of a desert wilderness.
• 2. The place of our Savior's residence all this while, be it where it will in the wilderness of Judea, whether two miles from Jericho at Quarantania, as it is pointed out by some, or further southward along the banks of the dead Sea, as the more desert place, or wheresoever else, it was in the company and danger of wild beasts, and no human company near him to comfort him, nor house to shelter him.
• 3. His posture in this time and place was not only in a fasting, but in an impossibility of getting sustenance unless by miracle; in solitude, in want of company, in want of necessaries, and in a condition that made a life as comfortless, as likely might be.

Upon these outward occasions as fit opportunities for such a matter, Satan would be busy with his suggestions to inject them into Christ if it had been possible, either to have moved him from that resolved work upon which he was, or to have moved him to the acting or entertaining of something which should not have been.

And herein did these forty days and nights fasting of our Savior, exceedingly outgoe the like dated fastings of Moses and Elias. For he did not only fast, but he was in continual watching and constant combat with Satan, and did not so much as enjoy the repose of his body, or of his thoughts in rest and contemplation, as Moses and Elias had sweetly done in their fasts, without such disturbance.

Compare the combat in 1 Sam. 17. 16.

Matthew mentioneth the nights of his fasting, as well as the days, that it might be distinguished from the ordinary fastings of other men, who though they ate nothing of all day, yet at night they did, 1 Sam. 14. 24. 2 Sam. 1. 12. &c. But the fast in Susan was for three days and nights, Esth. 4. 16. Now this long and miraculous fast of Christ was not for imitation, no more than were the like of Elias and Moses, but as theirs was, so was this for another end: For as Moses fasted three times forty days and forty nights at his giving of the Law, and settling of religion, that the authority of the one, and the honor of the other might be the more advanced; and as Elias fasted forty days and forty nights at his restoring of decaying prophecy, and beginning of a reformation, that the one and the other might be the more dignified in the hearts of the people, upon this very consideration, that the agents in these things, did as it were for a preface to the acting of them, lead so Angelical and miraculous a life for so long a time.

So was this like action of our Savior for the greater honor and authority of the Gospel which he was now to preach; when he that preached it, had led so the long life of an Adgel without meat and drink, had foiled the Devil upon the greatest advantages imaginable, and had dwelt among the den of wild beasts, and was hurt by them; compare Isaiah 11. 6.

Thus did John the Baptist begin the Gospel with wondrous abstemiousness, and Christ with miraculous abstinence, both of them thereby not only honoring the Gospel which they preached, but also thereby instructing them to whom they preached it: 1. That the kingdom of heaven is not of meats and drinks. 2. That man is not to live by bread only, but by the Word of God. And 3. That the liberty of the Gospel is not licentiousness, but liberty of another nature.

§ And when they were ended he afterward hungered.

It is not so said either of Moses or Elias, though the same thing were true likewise of them; but it is expressed thus of Christ: 1. To evidence his humanity. 2. And chiefly to give light unto the story following, namely, to show that Satan took occasion for his first proposal to turn stones into bread, from Christ's hungering. And 3. that this and the first temptation might be paralleled, where Satan assaulted Eve; when she now began to hunger, and it was eating time.

Now is the seed of the Woman and the Serpent met visibly together, and the enmity which was set betwixt them from the first day of Adam, is now breaking into an open combat. And the Evangelist in the Epithet, the Tempter, doth plainly call us to take notice of the first temptation, that occasioned the fixing of that enmity. The Devil now appeareth to Christ in a visible shape, as he had done to Eve; but in what appearance, the text is silent: It is most likely, like an Angel of light: and as she was deceived by him in taking him for a good Angel, in the trunk of the Serpent; so that he goeth now about to deceive Christ also in the representation of a glorious Angel: For in that he requireth Christ to worship him, and promiseth him all the kingdoms of the world, it is very unlikely that he carried the image of a mere plain simple man, or of any brute beast; for either of them it was most improper to make any such overture: but that he carried indeed a human shape, but with that luster, majesty, and gloriousness, that the holy Angels used to appear in, Judge. 13. 6. For that the Devil can transform himself into such a fashion and garb, the Apostle doth tell us.

§ He said, if thou be the Son of God.

He tempteth Christ under the notion of his two natures, twice in reference to his Godhead. To turn stones into bread, and to fly in the air, works of divine power; and once in reference to his manhood, to fall down and worship him for worldly preferment, an act of human sinfulness and weakness. When the Devil doth twice use this expression, If thou be the Son of God; it argueth not that he was ignorant who Christ was, as some conceive, [for the miracle of his birth, his adoration by the Wisemen, his wisdom at 12 years old, the voice from heaven, and his saftety among wild beasts at this time, show that impossible.] But concluding the thing itself to be so, he argueth from it to persuade Christ to act as the Son of God, and to do things miraculously. And the If in his speech is not so much of doubting as of assurance, as the If in those words of Lamech, If Cain shall be avenged seventy fold; and he forceth it as the consequence upon a thing undoubted, Seeing thou art the Son of God, as the voice from heaven did proclaim thee, it is very agreeable to thy so being, that thou shouldst exert thy divine power, and command these stones into bread for the satisfying thy hunger. And so in the other temptation that carrieth the same front, Seeing thou art the Son of God, it is very fit thou shouldest act according thereunto, and not go down the stairs as men do, but cast thyself headlong, and show thy power. In both which temptations, though a close persuasive to distrust God's provision for him in the wilderness, to rely too much upon second causes, and to presume without warrant upon a promise, be included, yet Satan's main bent and aim is to move him to act according to the dictate and direction of the Devil. And as he had persuaded Eve from the commandment of God, to follow his advice, so would he fain do Christ from that work and injuction which God had laid upon him, for the Ministry, and for man's redemption, to do things tending nothing at all to that purpose, but rather to vain-glory and self-exalting, and the Devil had had enough if he could have moved the Redeemer to have acted anything upon his instigation. Ignatius Martyr, Hilary, and others of old; and Beza, Chemnitz, some others of late, suppose that Satan knew not yet the mystery of the incarnation [no more than the Disciples did till after the resurrection] but that he proposeth this, if thou be the Son of God, as doubting of the truth of the thing, and seeking to be resolved in it: nay, that by the phrase, the Son of God, is to be understood, and was so in Satan's apprehension, only a very holy, and an extraordinary qualified man; as whereas the Centurion calls Christ the Son of God, Mat. 27. 4. Luke expresseth it only a righteous man, Luke 23. 47.

Answer 1. It is most true indeed, that the mystery of the Incarnation is a mystery most high and deep, and which created understandings cannot fathom, and that the Disciples were exceedingly ignorant of it, till more than flesh and blood revealed it to them: but yet for all this, the Angels good and bad might know the truth of the thing, though they could not reach the mystery of it: and the Disciples have some light of it before, though they had the more perfect understanding of it after the resurrection, as see Mat. 16. 16. The Devil was not ignorant of the Angels proclaiming him Christ the Lord, or Jehovah, Luke 1. 16, 17. & 2. 11. of an Angels and God's proclaiming him, The Son of God, Luke 1. 35. & 3. 22. Of the Prophets calling him, Jehovah, Jer. 23. 6. And the mighty God, and Father of Eternity, Isaiah 9. 6. and an hundred such expressions as these, which could not but put him past all questoning, who it was with whom he dealt.

2. It is true indeed that the Church and people of God are called his Sons, but it will be hard to find this applied to any one particular person, or single man in all the Scripture: That in 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psalm 89. 28, 27. is readily known to be spoken of Christ, and that in Luke 3. 38. we have explained before.

3. It is likewise true, that whereas the Centurion in Matthew, is brought in, saying, This was the Son of God, Luke hath brought him, saying, This was a righteous, or just man; but must it therefore follow, that he took him not for the Son of God, but that he called him so only because he was a holy man? In very many of the Evangelists, various expressions, we are not always to take the one to mean the other, but we must take them both in their proper sense to make up the full sense, as will fall to be observed in divers places: And so is it to be done here: The Centurion and his company upon the sight of the wonders that attend our Savior's death, concluded that not only he was a most holy man, but some rose higher, and sure, say they, He was the Son of God. Compare and examine the places.

Now the daring impudence of the Devil, thus to assault and assail him whom he knew to be the Son of God, will be the less wondrous and strange, if we consider [jointly with his pride, desperate wickedness, and malice] the ground that he might think he had to undertake such an attempt as this, to go about to foil him, who his own heart told him was the Son of God: And that was from those words of God in the garden to him, when upon the denunciation upon him, that the seed of the woman should break his head; yet God tells him withal, That he should bruise his heel. Hence did his impudence take its rise to do and dare what he did and dared at this time; and the having this very passage in ones eye and consideration upon the reading of this story of the temptation, will help exceedingly to clear, enlighten and explain it. For whereas two main scruples may arise about this temptation, [besides this that we have in hand of the Devils daring to assault Christ thus] namely, how chance it was now, and not before, and why it is said by Luke after these temptations, that the Devil departed from him for a season; the consideration of this thing doth give so much satisfaction to both these doubts. For, 1. it is indeed some matter of wonder that Christ should live to thirty years, and the Devil never attempt to tempt him of long a time, but should now come to assail him, when he had a testimony from heaven that he was the Son of God, and when he had the fullness of the Spirit in him above measure, which were greater disadvantages to Satan than ever; but the reason was because that now Christ was offered to the Duel in an apparent manner, which he never had been before, to try that mastery with the Devil about breaking and brusing head and heel: and the Devil having an assurance that he should bruise his heel, undertakes the combat, and dares be thus impudent. And 2. when he saw that he could not prevail with him this way to bruise him, namely, by temptation, he departs from him for a season, till he can find an opportunity for another way to do it, namely, by open and actual persecution.

Sect. Command that these stones be made bread.

To change the form of a Creature is the greatest miracle, as coming nearest to creating: and therefore when the power of miracles was first given, the first that was wrought was transforming, Exod. 4. 3. And such a one was the first that was wrought by our Savior, John 2. 9. The Devil therefore assaying Christ in a work of wonder, trieth him in one of this nature: and when he cannot move him to show his power upon another Creature, in Changing the form of it in this temptation, he seeketh in the next to move him to show his power upon his own body, in altering the quality of it, and making it fly.

Now to inquire what sins they were that the Devil would have persuaded him to in this temptation, in turning stones into bread, whether to gluttony, or distrust of providence, or what else, is not so material and pertinent, as to consider why he tried him first by such a manner of temptation. And the satisfaction to this is facile and obvious; namely, 1. because he took advantage of his present hungering. And 2. because he had sped so successfully to his own mind, by a temptation about a matter of eating, with the first Adam, he practiseth that old manner of his trading with the second.

This is the first speech that proceeded from our Savior's mouth, since his entrance into his Ministerial function, that is upon record; and though it be very short, yet is it very material for observation of these things:

• 1. That the first word spoken by Christ in his ministerial office is an assertion of the authority of Scripture.
• 2. That he opposeth the word of God as the properest incounterer against the words of the Devil.
• 3. That he alledgeth Scripture as a thing undeniable and uncontrollable by the Devil himself.
• 4. That he maketh the Scripture his rule, though he had the fullness of the Spirit above measure.

§ Man shall not live by bread only, but, &c.

He doth most properly and divinely produce this place of Moses, Deut. 8. 3. it being a Lesson which the Lord had read to Israel, when they had fallen into, and in a temptation, not much unlike to this that Satan would have tript Christ in at this time. Now the sense of the Text alleged is somewhat controverted; some take it to mean, that man hath not only a life of the body to look after, which is sustained by bread; but also, and rather a life of the soul, which is supported by the Word of God: And some again, by the Word of God, understand the Word of Doctrine; others, the Word of God's power, providence, and decree, as meaning that man's life doth not depend upon bread only, but that God can support and sustain it by other means as he shall see fit. Any of which carry a most proper, and a most considerable truth along with them. But the most facile interpretation of these words, and the most agreeable to the context in Moses, with which they lie, is, by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, to understand God's commandments, by the observing of which a man shall live, prosper, and it shall go well with him: for to this sense the first verse of that Chapter in Deuteronomy speaketh, All the commandments that I command thee this day, shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, &c. Now our Savior retorteth this in this sense, against the Devils temptation, that incited him to have turned stones into bread; 1. To show that it was his meat and drink to do the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work, as John 4. 34. And 2. that obedience of God's commandments is more propely the way to live, than by the use of the Creature.

Here it is controverted, whether this were done really and truly, or only in vision and apparition. And there be that assert the latter, conceiving that Christ was brought no otherwise to the pinnacle of the Temple, or to the high mountain, than Jeremy went to Euphrates to hide his girdle, Jer. 13. or Ezekiel slept on his right, and left side, &c. Ezek. 4. or other things of this nature mentioned in Scripture, which it is past all denial, were done only in vision, vid. Jansen. in loc.

But that these transportings of our Savior from place to place, were really and actually done, even in the body, and not in vision, may be strongly confirmed by these considerations.

• 1. Otherwise they had been no temptations, which the Evangelists tell plainly that they were: For what had it been for Christ, to have seen a thousand of such things as these in a vision, and to have nothing more to do with them, but only see them; what temptation could this be to him?
• 2. The next place that we hear Christ was in after the temptations were finished, was beyond Jordan, as shall be shown in the next Section: now it will be hard to find how he was got instantly after his temptations to the other side Jordan, if he were not carried thither in the next temptation after this that is now in hand. For in the temptation before this, he is in the wilderness of Judea; in this temptation he is at Jerusalem on the top of the Temple; and in the next on the top of an high mountain; and the next tidings of him after is, that he is beyond Jordan.

Now this taking him up, was bodily, and locally, and really, the Devil catching him up into the air, and carrying him in the air to the battlements of the Temple, and from thence in the next temptation to the high mountain: And here may the Reader fix his meditations upon four or five material things very pertinent and profitable to consider of upon this passage.

As

• 1. the horrid impudency of the Tempter, that cannot but suppose him the Son of God, and yet dare assail him as the basest of men.
• 2. The wonderful humiliation of the Redeemer, that was even now proclaimed the Son of God from heaven, and now is hurried by the Devil in the face of heaven.
• 3. The power of evil Spirits over men's bodies, if they be permitted, and let loose to execise their power upon them.
• 4. The constant and continued providence shown in our preservation, that we are not hurried away bodily by Satan every moment, who is thus busy here even with our Redeemer, who was the Son of God.
• 5. That in all the Scripture there is no mention of the like story, that the Devil ever thus carried any man in the air, unless he had first bodily possessed him: For having first done so, it is said of the poor wretch among the Gaderens, That he was driven of the Devil into the Wilderness. And so, we have observed elsewhere, that it is probable that the Devil took Judas into the air, and there strangled him, and threw him down to the earth, and burst out his bowels, for the Devil was bodily in him before: but for one not possessed to be so transported from place to place, by the evil spirit, is a thing that hath no parallel in all the Scripture from end to end. Now whether it be not probable that the Devil would have possessed our Savior bodily, if he could have done it, and when he could not do it betook himself to this violent Rapture of him, be it also referred to the Readers consideration.

§ Into the holy City, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the Temple.

There are two main scruples and questions arise out of these words: 1. Why the Devil bringeth Christ to this place in this temptation. And 2. whether his flying in the air, and standing on the Temple, were visible, or no.

As to the first; It cannot be doubted, but something more was in the Devils thoughts when he brought our Savior hither, than merely his precipitation, or casting down headlong, or flying in the air: For had that been all, he might have found promontories, rocks, precipices by hundreds; from whence to have got him cast down, would have served the turn, as well as from hence, if his precipitation had been all that was intended and aimed at. But certainly there was some reflecting in Satan's mind upon the very place, as well as upon the very thing. And that being apprehended what it was, if it be possible to apprehend it, it will help to resolve both the questions at once. Conjecture is all that we can go upon here, and it is better to conjecture at Satan's mind in such a thing as this, than to be acquainted in it; and in a matter of this nature if one fail, in conjecture, it is as excusable on that hand, as it is difficult to hit aright on the other.

• 1. Therefore it may be conceived, that the Devil according to his constant practice, would make the utmost advantage he could of his deceits in this passage and temptation: and that he meant not only evil to our Savior, whom he had in hand, but some delusion also to the men of Jerusalem, amongst whom he brought him: For why should he take him from the solitude of the wilderness, into the middle of a City, if he meant no more than what he might have equally acted in that solitariness? or why should he set him upon the Temple, if he intented no more than what he might have done upon any precipice in the desert.
• 2. It seemeth therefore, and is very probable, that our Savior as he flew in the air, and as he stood on the Temple, was visible and conspicuous to the eyes of the people: and that Satan acted thus, that the people might be deluded with some misapprehensions concerning him. And truly I cannot but conjecture, that he intented to deceive them with misprision concerning Elias, who was so much in their thoughts and expectation, to come personally as the fore-runner of the Messias: For he having been wrapped away into the air, and so into heaven, when the Lord took him from the earth, as is related in the story of his translation, 2 King. 2. how readily might the people have their thoughts on him, when they saw a man in a mantle flying in the air, and taking his pitch upon the Temple, and away again? and this they might be deceived in the rather, because of the misconstruction which they blindly made of those words of the Prophet, Mal. 3. 1. Of the Angel of the Covenant coming to the Temple, which they understand of Elias, as see D. Kimch. in loc. But it will be said, what could Satan gain by this deceit? Why, this, that they would be confirmed in the mistake of Elias his personal coming at the last converse among them, and so the preaching of the Baptist, and the appearing of Christ after him would be the less regarded.
• 3. Now the acting of the Devil in reference to Christ, affords us these considerations:
  • 1. That whereas in his former temptation, he would have injected into Christ diffidence and despair in God, now would he do the clean contrary, and instigate him to presumption; then would he have suggested that God was mindless of him, and that there was no trust to be had in providence, for he must either turn stones into bread, or be without: but now he will have him to cast all upon providence and promises presumptuously, and neither to use any means, nor regard any rule.
  • 2. That the Devil doth here somewhat parallel his first temptation of our first parents, for that was in the garden a place of happiness, this is on the Temple the place of holiness; that in the paradise of delight, this in the paradise of Religion.
  • 3. That though the Devil could set Christ on the top of the Temple, yet could he not throw him off. Our Savior refused not to suffer him to bring him to a temptation, but he would not suffer him to have the least power over him in it: either to persuade him into the least sin, or to cast him into the least danger.
  • 4. Whereas Christ had used Scripture to him before, he useth Scripture to Christ now, and so goes about to assault him with his own weapon.
  • 5. That he might the more feasibly cast him upon a presumptuous reliance on the guard of Angels, he hath now brought him to a place as likely to have Angels ready about it, as any place under heaven: for where might they more readily be thought to be, than about the Temple?

What part of the Temple it was that Christ was set upon at this time, it is in vain to go about to determine, whether on some turret of it, as is conceived by some; or on the battlement ledge, as by others; or on some of the flying fanes, as by a third sort; or on the sharp broches that were set there to keep off birds, as by a fourth: it is as little material, as it is little determinable; only take this testimony of Josephus concerning the terrible height of some part of the Temple, and then be it left to ruminate upon. He speaking concerning the South side of the Temple, and of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Kings porch there, he saith thus; It was one of the most renowned works under the Sun; for there being a great depth of a valley, even not to be seen to the bottom of, if any one above looked down: Herod, raised a vast height of a Porch over it, so that if any one from the roof of it looked down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : his head would be giddly, his sight not reaching to the unmeasurable depth, Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 14.

It is as undeterminable what mountain this was, as it is what part of the Temple it was that he set him upon, and it is as little material: Only this is conceivable upon good probability, that this mount was beyond Jordan eastward, because the first appearing of Christ after this amongst men, is at Bethabara on that side, Joh. 1. 28. Now whether it were Pisgah, Nebo, Horeb, or what else, is but lost labor to make enquiry, because we are sure we cannot find; only this again is worth our thoughts, to compare together the being of Moses in the mount with God, and the being of Christ, in a mount with Satan: and the Lord's showing to Moses from an high mount all the Kingdoms of Canaan, and saying, All these will I give to the Children of Israel; and the Devils showing to Christ all the Kingdoms of the Earth, and saying, All these will I give thee, &c.

§ And showeth him all the Kingdoms of the world.

Here are two things mainly considerable: 1. The object represented to the eyes of Christ. And 2. the manner of Satan's representing it: The first, the text expresseth to be all the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them: upon which, if we come to ponder, by weighing and considering the state of the world at this time, it will appear, that the object that the Devil presented Christ withal in this spectacle, was Rome, her Empire and glory. For 1. That Empire is called by the very name of all the world, Luke 2. 1. and the very same word that Luke useth to express it there, he useth here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here.

2. Where was there any pomp or worldly glory to be seen anywhere upon all the earth at this time, but what belonged to the Roman State? nay, where was there almost any Country or Kingdom, but was within the compass and dominion of that Empire? or where was there any power or rule [as Luke uttereth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] either comparable to the power and rule of that State, or indeed where was there any power or rule that was not now under it? The Roman stories that describe the State of Rome at these times, do give an abundant account of her wealth, pomp, power, revenues, extent and largeness even to the amazement of the Reader, they were all so vast: and they do so commonly and familiarly call the Roman Empire, the Empire of the whole world, that scarce anything is more ordinary among them: Let but one be a taste of the rest, and let us take up all in little, in that prayer that Paterculus, a man that lived in these very times, makes in reference to Tiberins, who was Emperor and Lord of this vast pomp and power at this very present, in the conclusion of his Book: Voto finiendum volumen fit. Jupiter Capitoline—Gradive Mars—Vesta—& quicquid numinum hanc Romani Imperii molem in amplissimum terrarum orbis fastigium extulit,— destinate successores quam seriss • nos sed eos quorum cervices tam fortiter sustinendo terrarum orbis Imperio sufficiant quam hujus suffecisse sensimus.

3. If Satan had claim and interest in any place, state, or pomp under heaven, it was in Rome and her appurtenances: and if those words of his which Luke hath added, All this glory will I give thee, for that is delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will give it, were true of any place, it was true of this. For, first, observe the characters and dechipherings of Rome, as it is set out in Scripture, and see whether it carry not the very image and superscription of the Dragon upon it. In Numb. 24. 24. the first place that it is pointed out, it is doomed to eternal perdition; for both Jews, and even some Romanists themselves, understand Rome by Chittim in that place. In Isa. 11. 4. it is called The wicked one, as the Chaldee Paraphrase there: And Paul, 2 Thes. 2. 8. do expound it. The abominable armies, Dan. 9. 27. The abomination of desolation, Matth. 24. 15. The mother of fornications and abominations of the Earth, Rev. 17. 5. &c. Secondly, observe that in it was met together all the cruelty, bloodines, and persecution that was in the four bestial Monarchies, that were enemies to the Church before Christ's first coming, Dan. 7. compared with Rev. 13. And thirdly, observe that this was the seat of Satan, Rev. 13. 2. and that he gave his power, and seat, and authority to the beast of this City, That this was as his special heritage, and his heir apparent, the singular seed of the Serpent, Antichrist was to arise here. And lastly, observe, that the Kingdom of Christ, and the opposite kingdom of Antichrist were both now beginning, and that now the Serpents head began to be in danger, according to the prophecy so long ago, Gen. 3. 15.

Now after all these considerations may the Reader take up some such hints as these; and enlarge them in his own thoughts, according as he finds them fixing on his thoughts, and worthy meditation.

• 1. How probable it is that Satan when he maketh this offer to our Savior, doth intentionally point out this very Antichristian City and her glory.
• 2. How much truer he speaketh, than he commonly doth, or is commonly observed to do here, when he saith, that all power was delivered to him, and he might give it to whom he would.
• 3. How he doth offer to seat Christ in the very throne of Antichrist, and would persuade the singular seed of the woman, to become the singular seed of the Serpent, and his own heir placed by himself in his own seat.
• 4. How by this cursed overture, he would have stopped and stifled the Gospel in the very beginning and rise of it, by choking the great Preacher of it with all the power and pomp of the Roman State.
• 5. How, that he might prevent the breaking of his own head by the Kingdom of Christ, he striketh at the very head of Christ, tempting him with the glory of the Kingdom of Antichrist; and would have him to do as Antichrist would do, fall down and worship the Dragon.
• 6. How Rome is laid by the Devil for a stumbling block in the way of the Gospel, as soon as ever Christ appeareth towards the preaching of it.
• 7. How when Satan cannot at the entrance of Gospel, persuade Christ by all the pomp of Rome, to do like Antichrist, he setteth up Antichrist at Rome, to be an enemy to the Gospel, in all the continuance of it.
• 8. Compare Christ's refusal here, with the Jews choice hereafter, John 19. 13. Here he is offered to be the Caesar and Lord of the Roman Empire, which he refuseth; there he is refused, and Caesar preferred before him.

Now for the resolution of the second Quaere, viz. After what manner Satan represented this object before him, these things may be considered:

I. That it is not possible that this was a real and a very representation of these things indeed, for divers things do contradict it: For, first, there is scarcely any mountain under Heaven from whence any one kingdom can be viewed over: and if there were, there is scarcely any eye under heaven that could view it. And whereas the Devil brought Christ into an exceeding high mountain when he would show him this spectacle, it was rather to color the delusion, than to realize the prospect; for what he shown him from that mountain, and as he shown it him, he could have presented it as well upon any flat or valley. For,

Secondly, Matthew saith, that he shown him not only all the Kingdoms of the world, but also the glory of them; now this clearly argues that Satan presented something, more than could be seen in a common prospect. For though it had been possible for any eye to have seen all the Kingdoms of the world, that is, all the Countries of them as they lie, yet would not that view and prospect show their pomp and glory. He that from Highgate vieweth London, seeth the City; but he that will behold the glory of London, must go into it.

And thirdly, Luke addeth, that he shown him all these things in a moment of time: by which very expression he seemeth to intimate, that here was something different from common prospecting or beholding: for men looking upon a goodly prospect from an high place, view it successive, one part after another, and must turn themselves round; and if they will look further than that place will suffer them, they must remove to another hill where that prospect terminates: but here all this vast object of all the Kingdoms of the Earth is presented at one view, in a moment of time.

2. Therefore there was some juggling and delusion of the Devil in this business, and he rather presented an object of his own framing, than the eyes of Christ took up the sight of these Kingdoms as they really were. And it is far more proper to conceive thus of this matter, than either to understand these Kingdoms for the Spiritual Kingdoms of Sins, as some do, and to little sense, or to think that his showing these Earthly Kingdoms and their glory, was but pointing out where such a Country and Kingdom lay, and telling what wealth, pomp, and power it was of, as it is interpreted by others. Nor is it any derogation to our Savior at all, to conceive, that delusion was practiced and proposed to him in this matter, anymore than it was derogation to him, to be assaulted and used by the Devil in the other temptations. For,

• 1. Though here had been deceptio visus, and our Savior's eyes had taken and received this, as a real and a true object, which was but fictitious and phantastical, it had but shown the truth of his human nature, and neither sin nor imperfection at all. For, 1. Error of sense simply considered, is not sin. And 2. such a thing as this might have been done to Adam in innocence, seeing deceptio visus, or error of any other sense, is consequence naturae, rather than fructus peccati; an invincible necessity in the finiteness of our nature, rather than any proper issue or fruit of sinfulness.
• 2. But our Savior was so fully accquainted with the legerdemains of the Devil, and with the course of natural things, as that he could not be thus deceived by shadows, but judged of this prospect according as it was indeed, airy, delusory, and phantastical, though the Devil presented it to him under the notion of real.
• 3. Now the acting of Satan in this delusion, was, the framing of an airy Horizon before the eyes of Christ, carrying such pompous and glorious appearances of Kingdoms and States, and royalties, and riches in the face of it, as if he had seen those very Kingdoms, and their very State indeed. For this prince of the air doth most commonly work his delusions by that element, when he frameth them to the outward senses. And that expression used by the Apostle, The Prince of the power of the air, Ephes. 2. 2. is worth the looking after to this purpose. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In time past ye walked according to the course of this world, [ Secundum saeculum mundi hujus, doth the Vulgar and Erasmus render it, and it may be with reference to the worlds age of Heathenism] according to the Prince [which the Syriac explaineth, as is the will of the Prince ] of the power of the air: or according to Beza, Secundum Principem cui potestas est aeris: Now what is to be understood by, the power of the air, is of doubtful and various conjecture; whether to take it for darkness, or for the power that the Devil hath upon that element, or, which I rather conceive, for the principality of the air, that is, for the Devils; for in that sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cometh so oft in Scripture, that it were needless to exemplify, yet see Luke 4. 6. Rom. 13. 1, 2. &c. And according to this construction, the phrase, the Prince of the Principality of the air, is but the same with that in Mark 3. 22. the Prince of Devils: And so the scope of the Apostle should intend this, to make a gradation, or to heighten the conception of the Ephesians former impiety, by this aggravation, that they walked not only according to the garb of the world, but according to the will of the very Prince of Devils; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this world, and the principality of the air, to stand in Antithesis one to another, for the visible world of men, and for the invisible world of Devils, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to stand in the like opposition, for the rule and course of the one, and for the Ruler and Prince of the other. But be the sense of the expression which of these it will, it holdeth out the dominion and power that the Devil hath in the air, and upon it, which he exerciseth accordingly, sometimes in real and very sensible effects indeed, as in raising storms and tempests, and sometimes in delusive and phantastical apparitions, as in the thing in hand, and in the blood and frogs of Egypt, which the sorceres produced: Now in the exhibition of such phantasms as these, he doth a threefold act at once, namely, condensate the air that it may become a visible object, shape it into such or such a figure, and color it into such or such color, that it may be an object of this or that representation; and this is no hard thing for the Devil to do, considering the activity of his nature as he is a Spirit, and his readiness to act this activity, that he may deceive. In such a way as this did he deal in his false and delusive miracles in Egypt, in turning water into blood, and producing frogs; not that he did either really, [for it is impossible for any creature either to create forms, or to change forms] but his acting was upon the air, by colouring it over the waters, and by condensating it to the representing of frogs. And it is observable, that of those frogs that Moses produced upon the land, it is said, They died and were gathered by the people on heaps, and stank, Exod. 8. 13, 14. for they were frogs indeed; but of those that were brought up by the Magicians, there is no more mention, for they were but airy and fantastic apparitions.

§ If thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Here is impudency come to its height, and the Devil showing himself in his own colors indeed. Neither of the former temptations, had so visibly and desperately invited Christ to impiety, as this doth with open face: for in the first persuasion, to turn stones into bread, there was some color of Christ's own benefit, for he was now hungry, and bread might have been a thing of welcomness to him: and in the second, to have flown in the air, there might be some color of his honor and repute, in showing himself so miraculous before the people; as we read that some vain men have sought esteem by such a vain course, as Icarus mentioned by Suetonius in the life of Nero, chap. 12. And Simon Magus, so reported of by all Ecclesiastical Historians, and both these not very many years after this time. And Bladud mentioned in our own stories, if he lived at any time at all. But to be invited in plain anddown right terms, to fall down and worship the Devil, hath no color at all upon it but naked impiety. What, did not the Devil know Christ who he was? that we have proved before that he did: or, did he think that Christ knew not who he was? that he could not think, if he knew Christ as he did. What shall we say then to this damned overture of having Christ to adore him? why? here he joineth all his power of temptation together; and would 1. bring Christ into a more low fall than he had done Adam; and 2. makes a stroke desperately at him to have bruised his head, whereas it was told him only he should bruise his heel; and all this, because being of an intolerable impudency, he would obtrude anything, even beyond all sense, reason, and modesty, to compass his own design; and seeing Christ had condescended so far as to be hurried by him in the air, he would leave no way unattempted of tempting, if so it might have been possible to have corrupted innocence now, as he did once in Adam; and to have power over his mind, as he saw he had so far over his body. And thus hath he done his worst, and shown his Devilship to the utmost, to have brought the second Adam to have been a sinner like the first, but here the seed of the Woman that was promised Adam, bruised the head of the Serpent, who would have bruised his.

Luke's expressing of this hath bred some scruple, for he hath phrased it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendered by our English, Get thee behind me Satan; being the very same words that our Savior useth to Peter, Mark 8. 33. when he would have persuaded him not to have been Christ, as the Devil would here have persuaded him to be Antichrist: Hence hath a doubting been bred with some, whether Christ commanded the Devil clean away, anymore than he did Peter, or only commanded him either to get behind his back, or not to offer to advise or direct him in anything further, as he had impudently done hitherto. The Syriac hath omitted that passage in Luke wholly, and so hath the Vulgar Latin; and Beza mentioneth four ancient Greek copies that wanted it also: But, saith he, in the other, and in Theophylact these words are found; and so are they in the Arabic, and most authentic copies, expositions and translations. Now the meaning of Christ in these words, is to pack Satan clean away from him indeed, as is apparent by the expression of Matthew, who saith only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be gone; and by the sequel itself, for Matthew telleth, that upon these words, the Devil departed; But Luke hath added the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Behind me, because he hath mentioned another temptation after this: and it would have seemed that Christ had not had command over the Devil, if he had bidden, Be gone Satan, and he had not departed. Therefore though it were true indeed, that the Devil did depart upon these words, and tempt Christ no more, yet since it seemeth not so in Luke's method, therefore he used such an expression as was suitable and agreeing to his own method and order; and which might both serve the same sense that Matthew intended in his expression, and yet withal save the sense of Luke himself in regard of the ranking of these temptations. By the phrase therefore, Get thee behind me, he meaneth not, that Satan should only leave advising and instructing Christ what to do, and come behind him, as a disciple doth behind his Master, yet following, and not departing from him: but by it he commandeth the Devil never to offer to tempt and assault him in the like kind again; and curbeth his hideous impudency and sawciness that durst thus assail him, &c. And to the same tenor may the same words of our Savior to Peter, be readily and facily understood, the intention of the temptation only differing.

It is not so much material, to question, whether to render this for a season, [as our English, and some other Translators do] or, till a season, [as the Syrian, Arabic, and some others seem to do, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will very well bear] as it is to inquire, when it was that the Devil returned to assault Christ again, as this expression of the Evangelist seemeth to enforce he did. But we shall take the consideration of all these together. The Evangelist saith first, That the Devil having finished all the temptation, departed. Now this ending or finishing all the temptation, is understood by some to mean, that when he had proposed these temptations, he had proposed all manner of temptations whatsoever; and so he had, for he had tempted him to lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life, which the Apostle John makes the heads or generals of all the things that are in the world, 1 John 2. 16. and he had tempted him visibly and invisibly, which are the two only ways of his temptations in his own person: But it may withal, and rather be understood, that the Devil having now done his worst to have tempted him to sin, and not seeing himself prevail in it, he departed, resolving to assail him afterwards in another way. It was told him in the garden, that he should bruise his heel; but here, if you observe him in all these his temptations, he striks at his very head, namely, to have brought Christ to have sinned, and so to have spoiled himself and redemption: but when he seeth that his endeavor in this hath been in vain, and that still he was far from bringing Christ to sin, but that Christ did foil him in every temptation, he will try no more at this time, nor to this purpose, nor in this way, but will reserve his further enterprise till another time, end, and way of tempting. And the first of these the Evangelist means, when he saith, He departed from him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and indeed includeth the other two. The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if we render them, till a season, [which is the most natural signification of them] may be taken in a double sense; either, till a season opportune, or, till a season fixed. And I take the latter to be the most proper and very meaning of the words. For a more opportune season for his temptations than he had had already, Satan could not have wished; for he had had Christ alone, he had had him so, in the bitter inconveniences of hunger, cold, and watchfulness, and had had him so much in his power, as to carry him in the air from place to place, and yet with all these advantages on his side, he could not have his will over him: and therefore there was no expecting any better convenience, or season, to bring him to sin, as he would have had him: But there was a season fixed, when Satan must bruise his heel, for God had so told him in the garden, and when he must have some power over him in something else, though he could have none over him to bring him to sinning; and therefore he departs now unsped of what he came about, for he could not cause Christ to sin; but he will wait till that fixed time come, when he is sure he shall speed against him some other way; and that was when he caused his death. And to this very thing Christ himself seemeth to allude in those words, Joh. 14. 30. The Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me; where almost every word in a manner faceth something in this story that we have in hand. The phrase, The Prince of this world, answereth that offer that Satan had made him, of giving him all the Kingdoms of the World, For they, saith he, are mine to give. The word, cometh, answereth the words here, Departed till the season: And the words, He hath nothing in me, meaneth, his not being able to infuse any sin into Christ in any of these temptations, that he might thereby lay any claim to him. And this coming of this Prince of the world, was to work his death, as is apparent by the very verse itself, and as our Savior himself doth further explain it, Luke 22. 53. This is the power of darkness.

Satan's departure therefore from him at this time when he had ended all the temptation, was, 1. With intent to assault him again, at the fixed season; when he knew he should have power over him to do him some hurt, though he could not now. 2. Then to bruise his heel, and to cause his death, though he could not now break his head, and cause him sin. 3. To assault him then by his wicked instruments, whom he could not now damage by his wicked self; In one instrument [not properly his, but abused by him for such a purpose] he once tempted Christ to sin, before he assaulted him to bring him to suffer, and that was in the mouth of Peter, Mark 8. 32. who received the very same check for his pains, Get thee behind me Satan, that Satan himself did for his last temptation.

Mark hath told the story of the temptation very short, He was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan, and was with the wild beasts, and the Angels ministered unto him: In which relation as he hath given us account of his temptation, which shown him man, so hath he also of two other things which shown him more: and those were, his safety among wild beasts, and his visible attendance by Angels: Now he mentioneth only his forty days temptation, which was by Satan invisibly, and speaketh not a word of the three temptations, when Satan assailed him in a bodily shape, and yet he saith that the Angels ministered unto him: which if you will strictly construe according to the very letter of his relation, you must conclude, that this ministration of Angels was before Satan appeared visibly to him; and so it will follow that the Angels ministered to him visibly, and Satan tempted him invisibly at the same time. But since the briefness of one Evangelist is to be cleared by the larger relation of the other, we are to understand Mark by the fuller story of Matthew, and so as Matthew doth show you the full history of the temptation, and teacheth you how to construe Marks briefness upon it; so must he also explain the time of the Angels ministration, namely, after all the temptation was ended; which Mark hath left undetermined.

It were no very great Solecism in Divinity, to hold, that the Angels might be visibly attending of Christ all those forty days that the Devil was invisibly tempting him: but since it is most probable, that Christ exposed himself in the nakedst manner, I mean, in the greatest plainness and meanness that might be, to Satan's tempting, that so his victory over him might be the more glorious; it is also very probable, that he called not for such attendance of Angels, but suspended it till his combat was done and the victory obtained. And then [howsoever they did before] The Angels came, saith Matthew, and ministered unto him.

When the Scripture speaketh of Spirits or Angels coming or going, it doth most generally mean it of a visible and apparent manner, as Gen. 19. 1. & 32. 1, 2. Jude 6. 11. and in very many other places, and so is it to be understood here: that after the evil Angel, or the Prince of the evil spirits was departed, who had assailed Christ in a visible shape; the good Angels in visible appearances also came and gave their attendance on him. Their ministering unto him, as to particulars, was in bringing to him necessaries and provisions in that his hunger, and in that place where it is likely provisions were not otherwise suddenly to be had: so the Son of man eateth Angels food, and like Elias is fed by the Angels of the Lord in a desert place.

And thus hath Christ been shown the Son of God by the voice of the Father, and anointed for the great King, Priest, and Prophet visibly by the Holy Ghost: And thus hath he shown his power and command over the evil Angels; and the good Angels have owned his Lordship and dominion over themselves; and thus every way attested, is he presently to appear amongst men as the Minister of the Gospel.

§. He that cometh after me, is preferred before me.

We do not find that John had at any time before Christ's baptism, given any such testimony as these words. He had said indeed, A mightier than I cometh after me, whose shoos I am not worthy to bear, and whose shoo latchet I am not worthy to unloose, as the other three Evangelists agree in the relating of it; but these words, He is prefer'd before me, for he was before me, we heard not of till now: Yet is it to be conceived that the Baptist speaketh to the same sense now that he did before, as verse. 27. showeth his intention, though he have altered his expressions: For it is a very common custom of Scripture, in alleging of former speeches, to give the sense, but not to keep exactly to the words. And yet it is not without its weight, that whereas Johns constant testimony of Christ before his baptism was, A mightier than I cometh, he should as constantly after his baptism use this, He coming after me is prefer'd before me; as here, and verse. 27. & 30.

Now the reason of this seemeth to be, because Christ had now appeared, and no mighty work had been yet shown among the people by him; no nor anything done in their eyes or hearing, which might give them occasion to conceive, that he was mightier or stronger than John. The appearance of the Holy Ghost, and the voice from heaven, they had neither seen nor heard; only his catching away from Jordan at this time, it is probable they saw, therefore John to clear their apprehensions from any carnal misconstruction of his words, explains himself, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A mightier than I, they were not so to understand, as to look for any present visible demonstration of power or miraculousness from him, but that they should take notice that he of whom he spake those words, was before him in rank and dignity, for he was before him in time and office, nature and qualifications, though he came after him.

§. Is prefer'd before me.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which the Vulgar Latin hath dangerously translated, Ante me factus est, he was made before me; and accordingly the Arians in ancient time made use of this place in this sense, against the eternity of the Son. Whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Beza well observeth it) in the New Testament, doth constantly refer to place, and not to time, as Mar. 1. 2. Matth. 17. 2. Luke 12. 8. & 19. 27, 28. and divers other places, and therefore our English hath well expressed it with an intimation of such a thing, is prefer'd before me: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this speech of the Baptist, must needs have a distinct and different sense, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 between them, doth show that the one is made the reason of the other; He was before me in place and preeminence, because he was before me in time and being. Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which seemeth to refer to the time past, (and which hath occasioned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by some to be understood concerning priority of time) is to be construed in such a construction, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in Matth. 21. 42. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 4. 11. words not of the present tense, and yet necessarily to be rendered in the present time, I become the head of the corner.

I. These are the words of the Evangelist, and not of the Baptist, and so they are held to be by Cyril, Chrysostom, Chemnitz, and some others; though there be that hold that they are the Baptists words; and some that think no matter whether's words they be taken to be, either the one, or the other.

They appear to be spoken by the Evangelist: 1. By their agreement with his words in ver. 14. for there he speaketh of Christ's being full of grace and truth, and here, of their enjoying of his fullness. 2. By the agreement of the next following verse, which no question proceeded from the same speaker, with the 14 verse also. 3. By the agreement of verse. 18. which as doubtless proceeded from the same speaker likewise, with the same words of the same Evangelist, 1 Joh. 4. 12. 4. Those that the Baptist was speaking to in the verse preceding, were as yet altogether ignorant of Christ, and unacquainted with his appearing, and therefore it was most improper for John to say of himself, and of them together, All we have received, when they had yet received little or nothing at all. 5. The very sense of the words will demonstrate them to be the speech of the Evangelist, and not of the Baptist, as will appear in taking them up.

II. The verse consisteth of two several and distinct clauses, and the word [ and ] in the middle of it, though it be a conjunctive particle, yet plainly forceth this distinction; for though it is not to be denied, that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , very frequent in Scripture, that is, the word [ and ] very oft bringing on a latter clause, which speaketh but the very same thing, though in plainer terms, with the former, and in explanation of it, yet is this here unlikely to be such a one, though held by divers so to be; for I suppose it will be very hard to match or parallel this verse in all the Scripture with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is of such a tenor: The verse therefore being thus two distinct and several clauses, it is inevitably and necessarily to be construed in such a kind of syntax and construction; Of his fullness we have received somewhat: and we have also received grace for grace: And this was well observed by Augustine long ago, He saith not, saith he, of his fullness we have received grace for grace; but, of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace; so that he would have us to understand, that we have received somewhat of his fullness, and grace over and above.

III. Although it be most true that all the Saints of God have received all their graces of the fullness of Christ, for so Chrysostom and Cyril understand and interpret the word • e; and though it be as true, that the holy Patriarchs and Prophets that were before John, received all their gifts and endowments from the same fullness; for so some others interpret that word we, as if John should mean them, and join himself with them, when he saith, We have all received, yet it seemeth that the meaning and intention of the Evangelist in this place, is neither the one nor the other, but that by the word we in this place, he understandeth himself only and his fellow Disciples: For 1. he had used the word in that sense, verse. 14. he dwelt among us, and we saw his glory; where the words us and we do necessarily signify the Apostles or Disciples only, as was shown there, and how can the same word we be taken in this verse, which is but two verses off, any way so properly as in the same sense as it was there. 2. The Evangelist is in this place showing how Christ was declared and published by his Ministers, as well as he shown himself in his own person: And as John the Baptist was the first, so we the Apostles and Disciples were next appointed to be Preachers and proclaimers of him, as we shall see by the scope of these verses that lie together, by and by.

IV. Now that the Apostles received exceeding much from, or of Christ's fullness, there needeth no proving to those that have read the Gospel: They received of that, exceeding much favor, exceeding much sanctification, exceeding much knowledge, exceeding much miraculous power, exceeding much of the Spirit, and over and beside all this, they received grace for grace.

V. This latter clause hath almost as many several interpretations given of it, as there be words in the whole verse, I shall not spare to present the Reader with the variety, because I will not deny him his choice.

Augustine in the place lately alleged, paraphraseth it thus, We received of his fullness, first grace, and then again we received grace for grace. What grace received we first? Faith; walking in faith we walk in grace. What meaneth grace for grace? By faith we obtain God, justification, and life eternal.

Chrysostom in Homil. 14. on John, gives it thus, Grace for grace, which for which? The New for the Old; for as there is a righteousness and a righteousness, a faith and a faith, adoption and adoption, a glory and a glory, a law and a law, a worship and a worship, a covenant and a covenant, a sanctifying and a sanctifying, a baptism and a baptism, sacrifice and sacrifice, temple and temple, circumcision and circumcision, so is there a grace and a grace; but they as types, these as the truth: And much in the same tract goeth Cyril, lib. 2. on John, cap. 21. comparing the Evangelical grace given by Christ, with the legal grace under Moses; and of the same judgment is Beza.

Tolet on this place glosseth it thus, Grace is given to us because of the grace that is in Christ, and we are made acceptable to God because of him: or, as Camerarius that embraceth the same sense doth express it; We have received the favor towards us, because of the favor of God towards the Son. Maldonado saith, Grace for grace is, that some have received one grace, some another. De Dieu taketh it, one grace because of another, the latter because of the former, the first grace is the cause of the second, and the second of a third, and so on. Some take for one grace upon another, or graces multiplied. Others, for grace in us agreeable to the grace in Christ, the like in kind, though not in degree: And for conclusion, there is that supposeth, that grace for grace, meaneth only grace freely bestowed, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth only interpret the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or gratis.

All which interpretations are Indeed true in regard of the matter contained in them, yet whether they are pregnant expositions of this place, the scope of the place, and the intention of the Evangelist in it, may give occasion to doubt and scruple. For the Evangelist is apparently hitherto and here speaking of manifold declarations that were of Christ, or of the several ways and means by which he was revealed, as hath been observed: and therefore it is the surest way to interpret these words suitable to that scope and intention. And accordingly I cannot but apprehend and render these words so, as that the word grace in the first place should signify the grace of Apostleship, and grace in the latter place, mean grace in the hearts of the hearers, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or for, should denote the final cause, which construction being taken up in this paraphrase, will more easily be understood. And of his fullness all we his Disciples have received exceeding full and eminent gifts: and withal we have received the grace of Apostleship for the doctrine of the free grace of God, and for the propagating of grace in the hearts of others: And as the scope of the Evangelist draweth the verse unto such a sense, so doth the force and virtue of the language justify it. For first, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime in Scripture applied to such a construction, as we put upon it in the first part of the clause, as Rom. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We have received grace, (the very word used here) and Apostleship, which Beza well glosseth, Gratiam & Apostolatum, id est, gratiam Apostolatus, that is, the grace of Apostleship: Beneficium eximiae plane liberalitatis, quod alibi vocat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. And in the same sense the Apostle speaking, 1 Cor. 15. 9. I am the least of the Apostles, which am not worthy to be called an Apostle, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace on me was not in vain, &c.

Secondly, The Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth sometimes, and very properly denote the end and intention of a thing, and hath regard to the final cause, as 1 Cor. 11. 15. Hair is given to a woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that it may be a covering, Heb. 12. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Because of the joy that lay before him, Matth. 20. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A redemption in behalf of many, &c. And so among profane Authors it is not seldom used in the sense of Gratia, or for the sake, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cujus gratia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , non nullius gratia: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hujus doctrinae gratia, &c. And so may it very fitly be interpreted in this place, we received grace because of, or for the sake of grace, or, in behalf of grace; that is, that it may be advanced in the thoughts, and propagated and wrought in the hearts of others.

He had in the verses preceding treated concerning the declaration of Christ before his coming, and after it; both in the Law, and under the Gospel: And in the three last verses before, he had handled this latter head, viz. how he was declared in the Gospel after his coming.

• 1. In his own person and converse, verse. 14. The Word became flesh, and dwelt in us, full of grace and truth, and we saw his glory, &c.
• 2. In the Ministry of John the Baptist, ver. 15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, &c.
• 3. In the Ministry of the Apostles, ver. 16. Of his fullness we have all received, &c.

And now he cometh to weigh the tenor of the Law and of the Gospel; in both which Christ was thus declared, and to compare them together, and the two persons that were the chief Ministers in the exhibition of them, Christ and Moses: the two persons in regard of their Ministry of the doctrine of salvation: and the two things in regard of their tenor, clearness, and exhibition of that doctrine.

The word For in the beginning of the verse, joineth this verse, and that that went before together, and it pieceth either to the whole verse, to make up this sense, We received the grace of Apostleship for the preaching of the Gospel, as Moses did the Law; or rather to the last word grace, to the result of this sense, we received Apostleship for the propagation and advancement of grace, whereas Moses gave the Law for the advancement of works: for so the opposition that is in this verse, doth hold it out; as may be observed.

§. But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

These two words grace and truth stand here in Antithesis or opposition to the moral and ceremonial Law, which was given by Moses; For though Christ was the giver of the Law, as well as of the Gospel, and though the giving of the Law was a work of grace, and the doctrine of the Law, a work of truth, yet if the tenor of the Law and the Gospel be compared together, they will be found to differ mainly in these particulars, though there be a grace and truth to be found in either of them.

First, The Law indeed held out the doctrine of Salvation, and taught of good things to come, but it was so darkly and obscurely, and in such veiled types and shadows, that it was rather groped after, than seen: and therefore those things are called darkness at the fifth verse of this Chapter: and the Jews that lived under them, yea and gained salvation from the knowledge of them, yet are said to be, not perfect without us, Heb. 11. 40. that is, imperfect in the knowledge of the doctrine of Salvation, till the Gospel brought us Gentiles in. But the Gospel revealed Christ, and the way of salvation so clearly, and in so evident and plain a manner, that all those types, shadows, predictions, and representations, received their equity, accomplishment, and fulfilling, and it shown apparently, what was the substance and intention of them; so that what the Law held out in figures, the Gospel did in truth.

Secondly, Although the Law were in the spirit and marrow of it a Doctrine of Faith, yet in the letter and outward administration of it, it was but a messenger of Death, 2 Cor. 3. 7. challenging exact performance, which no man could yield, and denouncing a curse upon him that performed it not, and so concluded all men under sin and a curse; but the Gospel cometh and preacheth to another tune, and to a more comfortable tenor, promising remission to the penitent, though they had not performed what the Law required, and assuring salvation to the believer, though he had no works nor righteousness of his own to own; and thus it speaketh grace and pardon, whereas the other did a curse and condemnation: And therefore is it divinely thus opposed by the Evangelist, betwixt the Law and the Gospel in these two particulars, according to the two parts of the Law Moral and Ceremonial, and according to the two main Doctrines of the Gospel, Repentance and Believing.

For the Moral called for obedience, and challenged them under condemnation that obeyed it not: but grace and pardon came by Christ, and was offered in the Gospel to those that should repent for their not obeying.

The Ceremonial Law preached Christ under obscure representations, and difficult to grope him through, but the truth of what those obscurities involved, and what those representations figured, came by Christ, and the Gospel holds it out, and calls for faith in him that hath accomplished them: And thus is grace and truth said to come by Jesus Christ, and these to be the tenor of the Gospel in opposition to the Law, not as grace opposeth ungraciousness, but as it opposeth condemning, nor as truth opposeth falsehood, but as it opposeth shadows.

This is spoken from Exod. 33. about Moses his desiring to see the Lord.

The oregoing verse made a difference between Moses and Christ, which this verse pursueth; Moses desired to see God, but could not see him, Exod. 33. 20. for no man hath seen God, or can see him, and live, but Christ hath been in his bosom, hath seen him, and revealed him. Moses beggeth to know the way of God, and God promiseth him the company of his presence, verse. 13, 14. He beggeth again to see his glory, and God answereth him, that he will show him his goodness, verse. 18, 19. and more of God he saw not, and so much of God hath none seen besides him, but only the begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father. The story of Moses is divinely alluded to in this place; for as concerning the presence of God, the Evangelist saith, he dwelt among us. As concerning his glory, he saith, that they beheld it; and as concerning his goodness, he concludeth, he was full of grace and truth, verse. 14. And though no man hath seen God at any time, yet Christ imaged him forth among his Disciples, with a glory agreeing to the only begotten Son of God, and he hath declared him plainly in the doctrine of the Gospel, a doctrine full of grace and truth.

§. He hath declared him.

It is apparent by this clause, that the Evangelists main intention hereabout, is to speak of the doctrine and declaration of God, Christ, and the Gospel, and the publication of all unto the world; He speaks of Johns publishing of this, ver. 15. and of Johns publishing of this again, v. 19. and of Moses publishing of this in his kind, ver. 17. and of Christ's doing it in his kind, ver. 18. and therefore certainly it cannot but be unconsonant to the scope of the place, and to the purpose of the Penman, to interpret the 16 verse clean to another tune, about receiving grace of remission and sanctification, and this is that that hath mainly induced me to interpret it as I have done, because I see it plainly that the Evangelist applies himself in the whole context to treat concerning the witnesses, and the publication and declaration of Christ and the Gospel.

The Baptism and Ministry of John was of so strange a tenor, as was observed before, [ viz. that whereas the Law preached for works, he should call for repentance, and whereas Baptism had been used hitherto for admission of heathens to the Religion of the Jews, he should now use it to admit the Jews to a new Religion] it is no wonder if that Court who were to take notice and cognizance of matters of this nature, were very inquisitive and scrutinous after the business, to know Johns authority and his intention. It is rather to be wondered at, that they had let him alone all this while, and never had him in examination yet. John had now followed this course and calling, about eight months together, and six of these eight had he spent in Judea, in their own country, and yet for ought we read, they had never quarrelled with him till this very time: now what the cause of their long-forbearing should be, is hardly worthy the inquiring after, only this we cannot but acknowledge a chief reason of it, namely, God so dispensing and disposing, that his Ministry might run interrupted, or without any let, till Christ should begin to show himself in his Ministry; which the very next day after this dispute he did: And so the Gospel might have no stop in this beginning of it, but while Christ preached not, John should preach without trouble, and when John began to be troubled, Christ should then be ready to preach.

The scrutiny and judging of a Prophet, belonged only to the Sanhedrin or great Council at Jerusalem; and so is the Talmudic tradition, in the Treatise Sanhedrin Perek. 1. They judge not a Tribe, nor a false Prophet, nor the High Priest, but in the judicatory of Seventy and one; and to this law and practice of theirs, those words of Christ relate in Luke 13. 33. It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem: because a Prophet could not be judged upon life and death in any place but there.

This Court and Council sent these messengers to John to make enquiry after him, and after his authority; and so is the word, the Jews, to be understood in this verse, for the representative body of the Jews in the great Judicatory. And they send Priests and Levites to examine him, as men of the greatest knowledge and learning in the Law, and men of the likeliest abilities to try him, and to dispute and discourse with him according to that in Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth.

We do not perceive by the Text, that this question, whether he were the Christ, or no, was proposed to him at all, yet he giveth satisfaction to this first: partly, because the time of Christ's appearing was now generally thought by the Nation to be at hand, Luke 2. 26, 38. & 19. 11. & 24. 31. Joh. 4. 25. &c. and partly, because the eminency of John had made the people look upon him, with some questioning whether he were not the Christ, Luke 3. 15.

When he hath resolved them that he is not the Messias, they presently question whether he be not Elias, Messias his fore-runner: for their expectation was of the fore-runners bodily coming, as well as of Christ's. Their opinions concerning Elias his first coming, and who he was then, and of his latter coming, and what they look for from him then, it is not impertinent to take up a little, in their words and Authors.

Some of our Rabbins of happy memory (saith Levi Gershom) have held, that Elias was Phinehas; and this they have held, because they found some correspondency betwixt them. And behold it is written in the Law, that the blessed God gave him his covenant of peace. And the Prophet saith, My Covenant was with him of life and peace: And by this it seemeth that God gave to Phinehas length of days to admiration: And behold we find that he was Priest in the days of the Concubine at Gibeah, and in the days of David we find it written, And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them of old, and the Lord was with him, 1 Chron. 9. 20. And he was the Angel that appeared to