that the poverty of art has usurped the riches of nature; that we neglect the useful to adopt the pernicious, namely: THE It is a

EARLY DECAY OF THE TEETH OF THE RISING GENERATION.

growing evil, and we cannot but ask what it signifies. We know no devourer below man that eats up its own teeth. Nature made our bodies to last; and, when any part of them prematurely decay, it is a certain sign we have violated some of her fundamental laws.

Two objects, then, are before us, and let no one smile if we insist on their importance. One is, to import from the open field of nature all those good and wholesome things which our Father has laid up for us; and, secondly, to train our taste and habits for the using of those things which are nutritive and sweet, and which may have the best influence on our moral character and social happiness.2

There are many things which we shall never throw away, but we are equally clear that there are some things which we shall yet discover.

Horace laughs at the Romans for eating the peacock, because his plumage was fine:

Num vesceris istâ,

Quam laudas, plumâ ? 3

One relic of this folly we have. We pay a higher price for

and rest on. Thus, gaudy colors please at first, but plainer ones meet our improved and permanent taste. Now what is the food that will always be pleasing, always healthful, and always abundant?

Τῶν δ ̓ ὅστις λωτοῖοο φάγοι μελιηδέα καρπόν,
Οὐκετ ̓ ἀπαγγεῖλαι πάλιν ἤθελεν, οὐδὲ νεέσθαι.

Odyssey, Lib. IX. lines 94, 95.

1 One advantage of providing such food as is permanently grateful and wholesome will be, that students and professional gentlemen will not be tempted to eat too much. A copious source of disease and suffering! A gentleman in this vicinity has written the following recipe, on which he stakes his reputation as a poet and a philanthropist :

"Your sickness, languor and distress

You often might restore,

If you would eat a little less

And work a little more."

2 The evil of smoking cigars, chewing tobacco, etc., is, that it tends to pervert and ruin this permanent taste for the wholesome and the good.

8 See Satir, II. Lib. II. lines 26, 27.

the white flour that looks well, than for the coarse wheat which is far more nutritive and far more palatable. When the last treasures are discovered; when we have brought fashion and nature together;

Then, like the Sun, let bounty spread her ray,
And shine that superfluity away.

ARTICLE VIII.

THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS.

By William A. Stearns, D. D., Cambridge, Mass.

In attempting to explain the transaction recorded in Matthew 4: 1-11, Mark 1: 12, 13, and Luke 4: 1-15, we do not forget that the subject is mysterious, and should be approached with awe. It comprehends a deep spiritual philosophy. Its interpretation is beset with difficulties. We have never met with any satisfactory commentary upon it. Nor shall we be disappointed if our own explanation should fail of commending itself to all. The subject, however, is exceedingly important, and invites study. If we are able to make even a small contribution towards a proper understanding of it, we shall not feel that we have labored in vain.

1. The circumstances under which the temptation occurred. It took place at the commencement of our Lord's ministry. In the history of his experience, it followed a season of high spiritual exaltation. He had just received baptism; the heavens had been opened unto him; the Spirit had descended upon him; the Father had said, in a voice from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," and, according to Luke, he was at that time full of the Holy Ghost. These are the circumstances, and such was the state of mind, under which he was conducted to the scene of temptation.

2. The time occupied with this event. It is commonly spoken of as forty days and forty nights. But the record shows that

forty days and forty nights elapsed since he was led up into the wilderness, before the three special temptations here mentioned, commenced. "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights," says Matthew, "he was afterward an hungered." Luke is equally explicit. He says, that when the forty days and forty nights" were ended, he afterward hungered." We have no means of exactly limiting the time. The three temptations may have occurred on the fortieth day, or the first on that day, and the second and third at intervals of some days after. Nor are these three temptations the only ones to which our Lord was subjected. As he was led into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, the natural inference is, that the whole forty days was a scene of conflict. Accordingly Marks says, that he was “in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan:" and Luke says, that he was forty days tempted of the devil, after which time the three great master-plots were brought to bear upon him. Nor is there anything in the record to indicate that the first of these three temptations was the first of all the temptations to which our Saviour had been subjected. Matthew indeed, says, after his fast of forty days, and his hunger had become extreme: " And when the tempter came to him." This does not imply that he had never come before. He might have approached him often. But now, in new circumstances, and much more than ever exposed to danger, a new onset from the adversary, as might be expected, was realized. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that, during the whole forty days, he was more or less of the time subject to those temptations which found their culminating points at the end of the time specified, or to other temptations not here mentioned.

3. The nature of the fasting. The fast of forty days may have been more or less rigid. Fasting implies sometimes partial, and sometimes total, abstinence. When Luke says, that "in those days he did eat nothing," he may mean that he had no regular supplies, that he subsisted only on the roots and wild fruits which he found in the desert. So Daniel says of himself, that he was "mourning three full weeks, that he ate no pleasant bread neither came flesh nor wine into his mouth." But whether this fast was more or less rigid, doubtless the Saviour suffered greatly from it; and, at the end of the time, the severest knawings of hunger come upon him.

4. The scene of the temptation. The scene of the temptation was the wilderness. What wilderness the Scripture refers to,

we have no means of determining. Probably it was one of those wild, uninhabited places which abounded near the Jordan. It is sufficient for our purpose, that the place was a desert, a solitude, howling with wild beasts, and so a fit place for dejection of mind, and the attacks of the adversary.

5. But how came Jesus into this place of temptation? Matthew says, that he was led up by the Spirit (vrò rov Ilrevuaros). Mark says, the Spirit driveth him (zò IIvɛvμa avròv éxßáhλ); and Luke again, that he was led by the Spirit (ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι). What Spirit do the sacred writers mean? Certainly, the Holy Spirit. For the record says, that, being full of the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (Ivɛvuaros άyíov), he was led by the Spirit (IIveúμaros), that is, the same Spirit with which he was filled. The words of Luke, avròv ixßálka, the Spirit driveth him, mean nothing more than that he was borne away by the powerful urgency of the Spirit within him. The IIvevua here is not the evil Spirit, for the word never refers in Scripture to the evil Spirit, unless when connected with some qualifying word to indicate it. Nor need we be stumbled at the idea that the Spirit of God should lead the Son of God into temptation. Christ came expressly to destroy the works of the devil. Under the tempter and arch enemy of man, the first Adam had fallen and ruined us all; the second Adam must contend with and overcome the same, or human recovery would be impossible. Christ, the captain of our salvation, must be made perfect through suffering, must be able to succor the tempted through experience of temptation, must bruise the serpent's head. It was, then, a part of God's plan, that his Son should come into conflict with the prince of evil, and get the mastery of him. He must, therefore, be exposed to his tempta. tions, and to his temptations in the severest forms.

6. But how is it possible that a perfectly holy being should be tempted? The question is readily answered, when we under stand the meaning of the word πειράζω, from which πειρασθῆναι and reigatóμeros are derived, signifying to make trial of, to try. God tempted or tried Abraham; wicked men tempt or try God; they are also tempted or tried by their own lusts; in other words, men are placed under powerful inducements to do evil, as they sometimes place God under powerful inducements to punish them. Christ was led into the wilderness that he might feel the full influence of the most powerful inducements to do wrong, VOL. XI. No. 41.

14

and, as our example and Saviour, resist them, maintain his integrity and manifest his incorruptible virtue. It is, indeed, said, that God tempteth no man; that is, he never lays before men motives to evil that he may lead them into sin, while he does place them in circumstances of affliction, trial and inducement to wrong, that, by opportunities of overcoming evil, they may manifest their loyalty to him and be confirmed in it.

Now, with this idea of temptation, we have only to remember that our Saviour, though Divine, was perfectly human; that he had human feelings, appetites and susceptibilities, and we shall see that temptation is possible even to a sinless nature. Suppose a holy human being famishing with hunger; suppose that his sufferings are so great, as has sometimes been the case with starving persons, that he is ready to tear the flesh from his own body. Now place before him a table loaded with food. His desire for it is unavoidable and inexpressible. But God says, touch it not. Nature insists on snatching a loaf. But duty says, No. Here are the most imperious appetites, the most powerful inducements. But it is possible to conceive of a person who says, No; I'll suffer, I'll starve, I'll die, but I will not disobey God. The inclination to eat is almost irresistible, but there is not the slightest disposition to disobey God. Reason sits upon its throne and exercises its power of choice. The mind is made up at once, decidedly, unwaveringly, and once for all. The urgency of nature to eat is almost infinite. But the true man within the man says, No! He says it instantly, he says it cheerfully, without the least murmur or disposition to murmur. While it is almost naturally impossible to refrain, it is really morally impossible to eat, under the circumstances supposed. We may say, therefore, of our Saviour, that, as a man, in case of extreme hunger, he must desire food, and, as a free agent, power to gratify forbidden desires, but, as a holy being, who prefers death to evil, he cannot do this wickedness and sin against God. There are also mental as well as physical susceptibilities which belong to human nature as such. And it is conceivable that a person might have strong natural desires for some forbidden object or attainment, beyond and above the province of mere animal appetite, and that the indulgence or immediate denial of these desires should make the difference in a given instance between sin and holiness. If this be truc, a holy being, independent of bodily organization, might be subjected to temptation.