CHAPTER XXIII.
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.’