[4.] Fourthly, When this is done, we must endeavour to maintain and stick to our first disallowance. A child of God, I know, in sinful yieldings of infirmity, may say as the apostle, ‘What I do, I allow not,’—that is, [1.] What he then consents to, he did not allow at the first, till importunity prevailed. [2.] Though his affections incline to sin, yet his constant settled judgment is against it; and though he do it, he cannot say he approves it. Neither of these are the things I aim at; but this, that as the first motions of sins are disallowed, we should endeavour to keep at that, to stand our ground, to withhold the least after-delight or approbation. Not but that we must be forced sadly to acknowledge the real truth of what the apostle speaks in the place last cited, that these different principles, which of them soever carry the victory, do so impede one another, that when grace carries it, yet it cannot do the utmost it would or aims at; so that in the stoutest oppositions, there may be some secret degrees of allowance unavoidably; notwithstanding we must so manage our denial, that, if it were possible, we should not afford the smallest inclination toward it; the least, the better and nobler conquest.
CHAPTER XXV.
The fourth direction, of repelling a temptation by Scripture arguments.—Of several things implied in the direction.—The necessity of answering by Scripture arguments.—The excellency of the remedy.—How Scripture arguments are to be managed.
The next particular in Christ’s answers to be observed by us is his citations of Scripture as an invincible reason against all the devil’s temptations; he beats them all back with this weapon, ‘It is written.’ That this was written for our learning, and that, otherwise than for our instruction, he lay not under any necessity of using this method, hath been evidenced before, and it is a thing which all commentators[487] do take notice of. From this we have another direction for the right way and order of resisting temptations, which is,
Direct. 4. That temptations are best repelled by arguments drawn from the word of God.
For the explanation of this, it may be considered what is first presupposed in this direction; for when it is affirmed that we must answer by reasons from Scripture, this implies—
(1.) First, That temptations are not to be opposed by groundless refusals. It is no way safe to say we will not, because we will not, nor to insist upon our own bare resolve; for this would be wilfulness, rather than an obediential refusal, and unwarrantable self-confidence, rather than a humble wrestling. There are some, of whom it may be said, as the prophet once charged the Jews, Isa. xxii. 11, that when Satan comes up against them, they look in that day ‘to the armour of the house of the forest,’ they ‘repair the wall,’ and ‘cast ditches for fortification;’ they prepare themselves to the battle ‘in their own strength, but they look not unto the maker thereof,’ to him who by his mighty power must fashion our hearts to resistance. The vanity of such undertakings is enough manifested in the event, for commonly such men go on in a bravado of resolution, but are so altered at the first appearance of the enemy, that they yield without a stroke. Who could be more confident than Peter that he would not deny his Master, whatever others did? and yet how soon did his heart fail him. We may warrantably deny a sinful motion, without being explicit in our reason against it, especially in usual temptations, and when they thrust themselves into our minds at such times when our thoughts are charged with an attendance upon other duties, in which nevertheless the heart hath a secret and implicit regard to the command of God; but in no case must we go down to the battle in the strength of a wilfulness, lest it go against us. And thus do they who, when they are reproved for some miscarriage, as of drinking, will presently with great confidence make engagements not to drink wine or strong drink, not to go into a tavern or alehouse, without any humble respect to duty, or the power of God for the conquest of the sin; and accordingly we see that usually such promises and obligations do not hold; either they wilfully break them, or they become sinfully witty to make evasions for the practice of sin, without the breach of the oath or promise.
(2.) Secondly, The direction supposeth that we must deny the sin with the arguments of greatest strength and authority. There were occasions and hints of other answers to these temptations that offered themselves in Christ’s way, and yet he waives them all, fixing only upon Scripture reasons as the best and strongest. It is no Christian wisdom to urge those inferior considerations of shame, loss, inconvenience, &c. Some have no other reason betwixt them and sin, but What will men say? or What will become of me? But besides that, these would only be a train to bring on disputings, and that it is no way safe to venture our souls upon such defences, when better may be had; for who will venture his life upon a staff when he may have a sword? It is easy for Satan to break these bows, and to cut these spears in sunder. He can balance such reasons with equal reasons, and presently make us believe that we have as good reason to commit the sin as those urged by us for the not committing of it.
(3.) Thirdly, This direction of using Scripture reason doth clearly imply that the force and power of Scripture is not in the words or characters, but in the mind and reason of it; not that Scripture used as a charm or spell, as if the devil were afraid of the sound and words of it, can beat back the devil, but it is the authority of its command which works upon the mind the highest impressions of fear and care, and as a strong argument prevails with us to forbear. Notwithstanding the plainness and undeniableness of this inference, not only do ignorant men bless themselves against the devil by repeating some phrases or sentences of Scripture impertinently, and such as have no direct signification of the matter in hand betwixt Satan and them, as if the devil could not endure to hear the paternoster, or durst not come within the sound of the name Jehovah, but also papists—and of them such as might be supposed more considerate than to be carried by such conceits—have placed a virtue in the words and sounds of Scripture, and therefore do they command, though under some limitations and restrictions, the hanging of sentences of Scripture about the neck in scrolls, for the driving away of evil spirits, though in a clear contradiction to the reason which they give in the general against this course, which is this, that the ‘power of Scripture is not in the figures and characters, but in the mind and understanding of it;’ and therefore profits as ‘pondered in the heart,’ not as ‘hung about the neck;’ and upon as slender grounds do they place a more than ordinary virtue, in the angelical salutation, in the seven words upon the cross, in the triumphal title, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,’ &c.[488] Such kind of oppositions are but a mock to Satan. We cannot think to ‘bore the jaw of this leviathan with a thorn,’ or to come to him with ‘this bridle,’ or to ‘play with him as with a bird,’ [Job xli. 2;] he durst allege scripture himself to Christ, and therefore it is not the phrase or sound that affrights him.