_The second direction, that temptations are not to be disputed.—The
several ways of disputing a temptation.—In what cases it is convenient
and necessary to dispute with Satan.—In what cases inconvenient, and
the reasons of it._
The next thing observable in Christ’s carriage to Satan is this, that
Christ, though he rejected every temptation by giving a reason of his
refusal from the command of God, did not suffer Satan to dispute his
temptations further than the first proposal, and in his answers he
takes no notice of the reasons or motives by which he laboured to make
his temptations prevailing. In the two first temptations he gives no
reply to what Satan insinuated by his supposition, ‘If thou be the Son
of God,’ neither by affirming that he was so, nor discovering to him
his knowledge of the secret subtlety which he had wrapped up under
these plausible pretences. In the third he answers not a word to the
vanity and falsehood of his deceitful offer of ‘the kingdoms of the
world,’ though, as hath been observed, he might have opposed strong
reasons against them all; and besides, when Satan became insolent and
impudent in tempting Christ ‘to fall down and worship him,’ he chaseth
him away with a severe abomination, ‘Get thee hence, Satan;’ from which
we have a second direction, which is this:—
_Direct._ 2. _That temptations to sin are to be opposed by peremptory
denials rather than by disputings._
This is a note which most commentators have on this place; but it
stands in need of a distinct application, because it is not a rule so
general but that the practice of God’s children have made exception
against it. For the clearer explanation of it, I shall,
1. First, _Give you the several kinds of disputings, by which we may
see that all are not alike_; for,
(1.) First, _The serious working of the thoughts in a quick denial of
a temptation with a reason implied or expressed, though it admit not
Satan to any further dispute or argument, may in some sense be called
a disputing_; for the Scripture useth διαλογισμὸς for any inward,
serious thought. Such a kind of disputing as this is necessary. It
cannot be wanting to any that refuse a sinful motion, this being, as
we shall see afterward, one of those directions which Christ intended
us by his example, and the very thing which Christ practised in every
temptation; for he contented not himself to give a naked denial, but
still adds a reason of such refusal. Those who in general terms urge
that temptations are not to be disputed, do not reckon this as any
disputing; and others that do, taking disputing for the refusal of a
thing with a reason assigned, think that his procedure in the two first
temptations is not imitable by us, but only that of the third, wherein
he chased away the devil with angry denial; but the mistake is obvious.
(2.) Secondly, _There is a disputing of unnecessary curiosity and
conference_. This is when a sinful motion injected into our hearts
is not directly consented to, but then instead of a full denial men
begin to raise questions and make objections of lesser moment, or some
impertinent queries which strike not at the root; as one observed of
himself, that instead of denying a sinful motion, he began to dispute
whether it came from Satan or his own inclination; and so, instead of
quenching the fire, he busied himself to inquire whence it came. Men
deal with temptations in this case as they who being asked whether they
will buy such a commodity, hastily answer no, but yet call back the
party again and ask whence it came, or what it must cost, and by such
entanglements of curiosity engage themselves at last to buy it. Eve
failed by such an inconsiderate conference with Satan, for the abrupt
beginning of the serpent’s speech, ‘Yea, hath God said ye shall not
eat,’ &c., and the summing up of the arguments which prevailed with
her to eat, ‘When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and
pleasant to the eyes,’ &c., [Gen. iii. 6,] do clearly evidence that
there was more discourse than is there expressed, and that also tending
to ascertain the goodness, pleasantness, and profit of the fruit. This
kind of disputing is always unlawful and dangerous, for it is but a
wanton dalliance with a temptation, a playing upon the hole of the asp,
and commonly ends in a sinful compliance.
(3.) Thirdly, _There is a disputing of a deliberating and parleying
indifferency_. This is when the devil puts a thought of sin into their
minds, and, while they seem not to be forward to embrace it, leaves
it to further consideration, and then they float betwixt resolved and
unresolved, betwixt _pro_ and _con_, being at a great dispute within
themselves what is best to be done, whether the conveniences on the one
hand will weigh down the inconveniences on the other. This, in cases of
apparent sin, is a wicked halting betwixt two, always unlawful.
(4.) Fourthly, _There are also treacherous partial arguings, wherein
the heart takes part with Satan_. These are those debates that are to
be found in natural men, about the doing or not doing of sinful things.
This looks so like the combat betwixt the flesh and the Spirit, that
it hath occasioned an inquiry how they may be distinguished each from
other. It is generally concluded that in that strife of the natural
man, the light of the understanding and conscience gives opposition to
the bent of the affections, and the same faculties, though sanctified
in part in the regenerate, are the parties that give opposition each
to other; but with this principal difference, that in this strife of
the flesh and Spirit the man takes part with God, whereas in the other
the affections take the devil’s part, and in a malignant averseness
to the light, strive to put it out and to get over the conviction of
conscience, so that the man strives to sin, and to stop the mouth of
such objections as come in to the contrary; this kind of disputing is
always sinful.
(5.) Fifthly, _There is yet a disputing in a strict sense, which
is a full and solemn debating of a satanical injection, by giving
it the full hearing, and admitting Satan to be a respondent to our
objections_. Of this it is queried how far it may be convenient and
how far inconvenient, because we see Christ in this place did not thus
dispute with Satan, and yet we find instances in Scripture of some holy
men that have been unavoidably engaged to dispute a temptation to the
utmost.
To answer this query, I shall, secondly, shew in what cases it may
be necessary or convenient to enter the lists with Satan in a holy
arguing, and in what cases it is inconvenient and dangerous. There are
four cases in which we may dispute a temptation:—
[1.] First, When the motion is of things _doubtful and disputable,
whether they be lawful or not_. Here it cannot be avoided; for albeit,
as the apostle adviseth, Rom. xiv. 1, ‘doubtful disputations’ are not
to be imposed upon others, so as to tie them up to our persuasions, yet
in these things every man, before he can act clearly, is to endeavour
his own satisfaction in the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the thing,
that so he may be ‘fully persuaded in his own mind,’ ver. 5. And he
gives two strong reasons of this, ver. 22, 23: (1.) From the rack and
trouble which otherwise the man may be put upon, while his conscience,
unsatisfied, ‘condemneth him in that which,’ by a contrary practice,
‘he alloweth.’ (2.) In that this condemnation of conscience, while he
doth that, the lawfulness whereof he believeth not, is an evidence of
his sin, as well as an occasion of his trouble.
[2.] Secondly, Disputings have place, when _a temptation hath taken
hold upon the thoughts, and so far possessed itself that our corruption
riseth up in the defence of the suggestion_. Satan will not quit
that hold, though he be an intruder without our leave, till he be
beat out of his quarters. The apostle, Eph. vi. 16, implies so much
by that expression, of ‘quenching the fiery darts’ of Satan. It
is not proper to understand it of a refusal of the first motion of
sin—though interpreters do usually make it comprehensive both of the
keeping out of the dart, and the plucking it out—because this evidently
supposeth that the dart hath pierced the soul, and now begins to burn
and inflame, which will require more labour for the quenching of it,
than a refusal of the first motion would put us to. As when fire hath
taken hold upon our houses, we shall be forced to bring water for the
extinguishing of the flame, which before it had broke out upon the
building, an ordinary care might have prevented. And this we [are]
further taught by a distinction which the same apostle useth in the
same place, of στῆναι and ἀντιστῆναι, standing and withstanding. We
must keep off the temptation, that it enter not, by standing against
the assault in a peremptory refusal; but if it do enter, then we must
be put to it, by a force of holy arguing, to pull out the arrow, and to
withstand it.
[3.] Thirdly, Much more need have we of disputing, when the present
temptation is _a motion of such a sin which we are habituated unto, and
have long practised_; for these kind of sinful motions are not cast
out easily. In this case, David adviseth his enemies, Ps. iv. 2-4, who
had for a long time, ‘loved vanity, and sought after leasing,’ that by
‘communing with their own heart,’ and by disputing against their sinful
practices, they should bring themselves under a holy awe, and by that
means stop the course of their sinning, ver. 4. This, indeed, is the
great thing that sinners are called to by God, to ponder their estate,
to consider their ways, to study the evil and danger of sin, to examine
themselves, and to reason together with God about the wickedness and
ingratitude of their actions, and about the contrary loveliness,
blessedness, and happiness of the ways of God, that so they may be
brought to repentance; all which are done only by a serious arguing of
their case and hazard.
[4.] Fourthly, It is convenient, and in some cases necessary, to
dispute a temptation which Satan offers to us, _by the mouths of men,
who entice us to share with them in their wickedness_; for here, by
arguing, we may not only discourage their further solicitation, and so
free ourselves from the like temptation for the future, but we also,
by the exercise of a holy charity, endeavour to ‘pull them out of the
fire,’ Jude 23. When Joseph’s mistress tempted him, he considered that
he had to deal both with the devil and his mistress, Gen. xxxix. 7, 8,
and therefore that he might ‘resist the devil,’ he peremptorily refused
the temptation; but that he might take off his mistress from her
unlawful prosecution, he argues with her about the ingratitude, danger,
and unlawfulness of such an act, ‘My master wotteth not what is with me
in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand: there
is none greater in this house than I, neither hath he kept anything
back from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do
this great wickedness, and sin against God?’ When sinners do entice us
to cast in our lot amongst them, pity to them, and care of ourselves,
will engage us to argue the folly and danger of their ways with them,
except they behave themselves as dogs and swine; their carriage giving
us just ground to conclude, that they are so set on wickedness, that
it may endanger us, rather than profit them, to debate with them. And
so was it likely—and the text seems to hint so much—that when Joseph
perceived his mistress was resolved upon the pursuit, and that his
reasonings were not minded, he persisted in his denial, but forbore his
arguings.
But however it may be convenient to dispute, in the last mentioned
sense, in these four cases—and others may probably be added—yet there
are cases in which it will be inconvenient and hazardous to dispute or
argue, and of this order I shall reckon four.
[1.] First, It is not safe to dispute the matter in _vile, infectious
temptations, such as are either suitable to our inclinations, or
may receive a favourable aspect and countenance from the posture of
our affairs and condition_. These temptations, even in our debating
against them, are like the opening of a sepulchre, which sends forth
a poisonous stream[478] which may infect those that loathe and resist
it. It is dangerous to admit fire into the same room where there is
gunpowder, though there be no intention to kindle it. It hath been an
old observation, that the very confession of infectious sins, though
designed to beget shame, and resolution against them for the future,
have kindled a new flame, by the unnecessary declaration of the manner
and circumstances, so that they have returned from the confessor
more infected than when they went; and those very persons whose care
it should have been to have put the highest disgrace upon sins so
confessed, to the begetting of loathing and abhorrency in the parties
and themselves, have by too curious an inquiry received such poison at
the ear, that the heart hath been forthwith infected. The like hazard
remains to those that are willing to debate such sins with Satan; for
though they begin upon the score of resistance, yet the very dwelling
on such a subject, when admitted to lay itself open, doth convey such
amorous looks unto the treacherous affections, that the heart is in
danger of a secret poison. There is no better way in such cases than to
command all such thoughts and considerations out of our coasts, and,
as we do when the city or town we live in is infected, to withdraw
ourselves from the air of such a temptation. We may observe the like
care in Joseph, though he thought himself concerned at first, as hath
been said, to oppose the unlawful suit of his mistress, yet seeing her
desperately set upon her folly, he declined all communication with
her, and would not be with her, Gen. xxxix. 10; and at last, when she
caught him by his garment, ‘he left it in her hand and fled,’ ver. 12.
He might easily have rescued his garment from her, had he not been
aware that his contesting against her might have been an occasion of
ensnarement to himself. Christ himself, when he was tempted by Peter
to spare himself, [Mat. xvi. 22,]—which was a temptation very taking
to human nature, especially when suffering and death is in view,—is
more short and sparing in his reasoning against it, than he was when
the devil tempted him. He gives no positive reasons against it, as
he did when he was tempted to ‘fall down and worship the devil,’ but
dischargeth himself from any further consideration of the matter by
a declared abhorrency of the thing, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan, for
thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things which be
of men.’ Which is as if he had plainly said, This is so apparently
from the devil, and so much abhorred by me, because so suitable to my
condition, that I will not so much as discourse of it or consider it.
[2.] Secondly, Generally in all temptations, though they have not
the advantage of our present special estate or inclination, as hath
been noted, _of an apparent withdrawment from obedience, or of
things unquestionably sinful, it is not convenient to dispute them,
but to dismiss them by a denial, except some of the forementioned
considerations do alter the case_. In known cases we need not parley,
but stoutly deny. Our resolutions for duty, and against sin, should
not be to seek. We are certain that sin is to be avoided, and duty to
be practised; here we should be peremptory. Abraham being certain of
duty, when God called him to ‘a place which he should afterward receive
for an inheritance,’ he disputed not the uncertainty, the danger or
inconvenience that possibly might attend his removal, but went out,
‘not knowing whither he went,’ Heb. xi. 8. Paul being called by God
to preach among the heathen, though ‘flesh and blood’ were ready with
arguments against it, yet he would not so much as confer with them,
but immediately obeyed, Gal. i. 16. Like instances I might fetch from
other holy men. Cyprian, when the president gave it to his own choice
whether he would obey or be put to death, commanding him to take it
into consideration, he readily replied, _In re tam sancta non est
deliberandum_, that it was not to deliberate in so plain a case. Mrs
Ann Askew, when at the stake ready to be burnt, a pardon was offered by
the Lord Chancellor; she would not so much as look on it, but returned
this answer, that she came not thither ‘to deny her Lord and Master.’
Bishop Hooker,[479] in the same condition, had a box laid before him
with a pardon in it, which when he understood—he was so afraid of
tampering with a temptation—he cried out, ‘If ye love my soul, away
with it; if ye love my soul, away with it.’ And many others there were
in all ages, so far from accepting such ‘unlawful deliverances,’ that
they would not take into consideration the unrighteous terms upon which
they might have escaped.
[3.] Thirdly, _When a temptation, after all means used, continues to be
troublesome, and is rather an annoyance than an infection, then must
we not dispute it, but by a holy contempt despise it_. Temptations to
blasphemy are oft of this nature, as hath been noted in its place, and
there are other things by which Satan creates to God’s children great
disquiet, while they in the meantime abhor the sin, and cry out of the
trial. Here when the ‘messenger of Satan’ will not depart, it is an
advice that hath the general approbation of holy experienced men,[480]
that we should despise the temptation, as an approved way to our quiet
and ease; for while we think to repel such assaults by struggling with
arguments, we do but increase the force of them; as he that thinks to
shelter himself against the wind, by holding up his cloak before him,
doth but derive upon himself a stronger blast.
[4.] Fourthly, _In temptations of inward trouble and terror, it is
not convenient to dispute the matter with Satan_. David in Ps. xlii.
11, seems to correct himself for his mistake; his soul was ‘cast down
within him,’ and for the cure of that temptation, he had prepared
himself by arguments for a dispute; but perceiving himself in a
wrong course, he calls off his soul from, disquiet to an immediate
application to God and the promises, ‘Trust still in God, for I shall
yet praise him;’ but in Ps. xi. 1, he is more aforehand with his work,
for while his enemies were acted by Satan to discourage him, he rejects
the temptation at first, before it settled upon his thoughts, and
chaseth it away as a thing that he would not give ear to: ‘In thee,
Lord, do I put my trust; how say ye then to my soul, Flee as a bird to
your mountain?’ And there are weighty reasons that should dissuade us
from entering the lists with Satan in temptations of inward trouble. As,
[1.] First, _The determination of the sincerity of the soul and
its converted state is a question of no small difficulty_—a knotty
controversy, more intricate and abstruse than those controversies that
in the schools are of greatest name for difficulty; for this is liable
to more weighty objections, and stands in need of nicer distinction. As
Dr Goodwin observes,[481] ‘They that converse with dejected spirits,
find so much quickness and nimbleness of reasoning, turning every way
to ward off the force of an argument brought for their consolation,
that even wise and able heads are oft put to a stand, and know not what
to answer.’ Would it then be fit to give Satan this advantage? or to
admit him so far into our reasoning? He that will invite Satan to such
a contest, shall be sure to have his hands full.
[2.] Secondly, This kind of temptation doth usually _disable men
for arguing_; it oftentimes confounds the brain, stupifies the
understanding, and weakens the memory. Heman complains of himself
as ‘distracted by terrors,’ [Ps. lxxxviii. 15.] Job calls himself
desperate, [chap. vi. 26.] Such persons are not surely in a fit case to
manage a temptation with so cunning a sophister as Satan.
[3.] Thirdly, If they descend into the battle, he is not only _too
strong for them, but commonly after a while they take Satan’s part
against themselves, and comply with him, concluding against their own
peace_.
[4.] Fourthly, _There is also a better way at hand than to enter into
a dispute_; and that is, by going to God by a present faith, love or
repentance, when the truth of any of these is questioned. It is a
difficult task to prove sometime that former acts of faith, love, or
other graces were sincere. This may admit of such objections from a
wounded spirit, that it will be hard to answer them; but in this case
it is a nearer way to see if there be not in all these complainings
some present acts of these graces; whether such complainants are not
willing to embrace Christ upon any terms, whether they do not hate
sin, whether they would not unfeignedly be reconciled to God, &c. It
oft falls out that this doth stay the trouble when examinations of
former acts do nothing for them. Some men are at more pains, as one
saith, to repair and fit an old building, than would serve to rear
a new one. Yet must it be remembered that though it were the best
course to resist temptations of this nature at first, by avoiding
unnecessary disputings, notwithstanding when this—as I noted before
of other temptations—hath seized upon the heart and taken possession,
then shall we be forced to ‘fill our mouths with arguments,’ and
whether we will or no, must we undergo a contest. As we see in David,
who when his troubles had prevailed upon him, was forced to plead with
God, with himself, with the temptation, and to have recourse to former
experience, ‘the days of old, and the years of the right hand of the
Most High,’ [Ps. lxxvii. 10,] and all little enough.
All that I shall further say concerning the inconveniences of
disputing with Satan, shall be to give you _the reasons manifesting
these unnecessary communings with him to be every way hazardous and
unsuitable_. As,
(1.) First, _It is an honour to Satan, and a disgrace to ourselves_.
Men are loath to be seen contesting with persons of a far inferior
rank, especially in such things which have procured to such a noted
infamy. It is a usual piece of generosity in men of spirit that they
scorn to strive with a scold, or contend with a beggar, or be found
in company of those that are under an evil name deservedly; and in
matters that are vile and base, it is highly disgraceful to admit
them to a debate. Such things will either get more credit than they
deserve, while they seem to be countenanced by a dispute, or else shall
communicate their discredit to those that shall shew such familiarity
with them.
(2.) Secondly, _By refusing to dispute temptations, we raise up in
our hearts an active abhorrency of them, and by that abhorrency we
are cautioned and strengthened against them_. It must needs awaken
our hatred into a present activity against that sin, which our
consideration at first view presents to us so abominable, that it
deserves no other answer but to be whipped out of our sight. And when
our heart is thus alarmed, it cannot but stand upon its guard. It is a
course that holy men have taken to keep men at a greater distance from
sin, to present it as a thing of greatest abhorrency; and that is the
intendment of that expression, Rom. vi. 1, ‘Shall we sin, that grace
may abound? God forbid,’ The vileness of that abuse of gospel grace he
shews by setting it below the merit of any serious thought; he sharpens
their apprehensions against it by an outcry of detestation. The like
he doth, Eph. v. 3, where he endeavours to set their hearts against
uncleanness and coveteousness, by telling them that it was unbecoming
saintship that such things should be ‘so much as once named by them.’
(3.) Thirdly, _Disputing is a secret invitation to the devil to urge
the temptation further_. We do but toy with him, and give him occasion
to follow us. Eve found the truth of this by sad experience; she so
managed herself, that she plainly intimated she had a mind to hear
what the devil could say for the eating of the forbidden fruit; and
so urged the prohibition of God, and the threatening, that she sought
from Satan a confirmation of her secret unbelief rather than faithfully
endeavoured a repulse of the temptation, and mentioned the threatening
under such terms of uncertainty and peradventure, as an objection which
she desired might be removed, rather than from a firm belief of that
death spoken of, fortifying herself in her duty; by all which Satan
was so encouraged to proceed, that he presently confirmed her in her
distrust.
(4.) Fourthly, _These disputings usually return nothing of advantage
to our account, but to Satan’s_. We unnecessarily enter the lists
with him, and that upon very unequal terms, he being, as Saul said
of Goliath and David, a ‘man of war from his youth,’ and we but
weak, unskilful striplings. We go out of our trenches and leave our
weapons behind us. We expose our naked breasts to all his darts, and
by discoursing with him he gains time wherein the poison may more
powerfully work upon our affections. If he was too hard for our first
parents at this weapon, we, whose hearts are not so faithful to God as
theirs in innocency, but corrupted by Satan, who hath also a party in
us, are not likely to come off with triumph.
(5.) Fifthly, _These presage, consequently, an overthrow_. A parleying
city holds not long out. It implies in itself an inclination to yield,
when armies are willing to treat. Daily examples and experience of
those that give up themselves to sin after communication with Satan
sadly witness this truth.
The sum of this direction is this, that when a motion of sin is put
into our heart, instead of disputing where it may be avoided, we should
peremptorily deny it and send it away with an angry rebuke or severe
abomination: I may not do it; How can I do this wickedness? Get thee
hence; or, ‘The Lord rebuke thee, Satan.’