A Key to the Key of Scripture, Chapter 3 · Exposition of verse 3, 4
Verſe 3. For what, though ſome did not beleeue, ſhall their vnbeliefe make the faith of God without effect?
Verſe 4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, and eueryevery man a lyar, as it is written, That thou mightſt be iuſtified in thy words, and ouercome when thou art iudged.
BVt proceed we in the Text: For what though ſome dealt vnfaithfully, ſhall their vnfaithfulneſſe aboliſh the faithfulneſſe of God? God forbid, &c.
Their ſecond obiection followes; well; yet this will follow, that either the Lord hath falſified his faith, or elſe, that all thoſe great promiſes mentioned in the inſtrument of his couenant, are become vnfruitfull and vnprofitable vntounto vsus. Anſ. Neither of theſe; for firſt▪ that vnfaithfulnes was not vniuerſall among the Iewes; ſome dealt vnfaithfully, and to them Gods promiſes were by their owne default, vneffectuall; but ſome others there were, and ſhall euer be in that people, to whom the Lord ſhall performe his couenant; ſecondly, yea though all men be lyars, and euen Gods owne children, through frailty, bewray particular vnfaithfulneſſe; yet is God ſtill true, both in himſelfe, and to them, if they be his; rather pardoning their tranſgreſſions, then ſuffering his truth to faile. And mans vnfaithfulneſſe ſerues rather to illuſtrate, then to ouerthrow the Lords fidelitie; in as much as he performes his promiſe, euen to thoſe alſo, that in ſome part deale vnfaithfully with him in his couenant. And this is proued by inſtancekPſal. 51., I hauehave ſinned that thou mightst be iustified, that is, I hauehave fallen through thy iuſt permiſſion, and this thou haſt ſuffered, that thou maiſt be iuſtified: that is; declared and knowen to be iuſt, and faithfull in thy promiſe.
This, ſauing the better iudgment of the learned: I take to be the meaning of the word. For that which ſome alleadge, that this expoſition ſeemes to import, that how euer men cary themſelues, they ſhall partake the promiſes. It followes not from it; nay this onelyonly followes, that the Lord performes his promiſe, notwithſtanding the particular diſobedience of his ſeruants, which is truelMala. 3.7., and the promiſes of God hauehave their effect to the beleeuing Iewes, notwithſtanding the vnfaithfulneſſe of ſome others amongſt them.
Now that we may hence obſerue, is this; Obſer. The vnfaithfulneſſe of vngodly ones in the Church of God, hinders not the accompliſhment of Gods promiſes made to the faithfull: ſee the Lord auowing this to the Iewes Ezech. 18. by reaſons; firſt, all ſoules are Gods, equally his creatures, equally deare vntounto him; ſecondly open profeſſion, the ſoule that ſinneth, and that onelyonly dieth; thirdly, more particular explication; handled in a compariſon of equals; as the rebellious ſonne hath no immunity by his fathers righteouſnes; ſo neither doth the innocent ſonne receiue any detriment by the diſobedience o… the fathernHab. 2.4.. The Iuſt liues by his owne faithoGal. 6., eueryevery man beares his owne burden.
Vſe. I will apply it to ſome particulars, as may moſt concerne the ſtate of our owne Church: this ground me thinkes affords ſufficient euidence for determination of thoſe many controuerſies, ſo vntimely raiſed, ſo hotely purſued, by Browniſts, that hauehave ſeparated, and Semi-browniſts, that ſtill liue after a ſort in the communion of our Church. It is firſt enquired betwixt vsus, whether the malice of the miniſter impeach the ſufficiency or efficacy of the Sacraments to a beleeuing communicant. This queſtion containes theſe three branches according to the ſeuerall parts of malice or euilneſſe in the miniſter. Firſt, hereſie; ſecondly, lewd life; thirdly, ignorance.
For hereſie, the queſtion is auncient; whether baptiſme miniſtred by an heretique be baptiſme or no: ſo of the ſupper. Anſ. Here I take it is this anſwere, nec a quouis, nec quouis modo.
Perhaps there are Heretiques, whoſe adminiſtration is fruſtrate; take for inſtance thoſe, that in the mayne doctrine of the Sacraments, and Trinity of perſons, erre fundamentally, as if ſaith*Zanch. in precept. 2. de culta dei externo. Zanchee, ſome heretique ſhould teach the party baptiſed, that the Father alone is God, the Sonne a meere creature; the holy Ghoſt nothing elſe but the action of God in our ſoules; this baptiſme thus adminiſtred, thus receiued, according to Zanchee his iudgement, is no baptiſme. Reaſon: becauſe not adminiſtred according to the doctrine by Chriſt deliuered, and therefore wants the very forme of baptiſme.
Augustine thinkes otherwiſe; I leaue it in medio: ſo likewiſe if any thing eſſentiall to baptiſme be wanting, as matter, or forme, ſuch baptiſme is no baptiſme.*August. de Bapt. contra Don. lib. 3 cap 15. Niceph. hiſt. lib. 3. cap. 33. Nicephorus makes mention of a miniſter that in the want of water baptiſed with ſand; the party was againe baptiſed; and as I iudge rightly.
But if the Heritique baptiſing keepe the doctrine of the Sacrament ſound in ſubſtance, faile not in other things eſſentiall to the Sacrament; iudgement of the Church now long continued is, that ſuch Sacraments are Sacraments; and need not to be iterated.
I wil propound the reaſons of the Ancients, breifly, and as breifly anſwere the contrary obiections: firſt,Auguſt. de baptiſ. contra. Donat. lib. 1. cap. 1. Auguſtine; thus, a pari as he thinkes; baptiſme may as well be giuen out of the Communion of the Church, as it may be had; but it may be had out of the Communion of the Church, by conſent euen of Donatiſts themſelues, that vſe not to rebaptiſe repenting reuoltes. Ergo.
Secondly, truth taught by Heritiques is Gods truth, and auaileable to edificationpMat. 23.1.2.3. Phil. 1.18..*Auguſt. cont. Epiſt. Par. lib. 2. cap. 11. & contra lit. Pet. lib. 2. cap. 5. Auguſtine ſaith well, Sic eorum fictionem fugit ſpiritus ſanctus, vt eorū non deſerat ministerium. Iterū, et ſi non castè annunciabant, ſua quaerentes, non quae Ieſu Chriſti; caſtum tamen erat quod annunciabant, &c. Iterum, ſi ipſe non regeneretur; castum tamen ſit quod annunciat, naſcitur credens non ex ministri sterilitate, ſed ex veritatis foecunditate. If this be true of their preaching, why not alſo of their adminiſtration of Sacraments.
Againe, circumciſion adminiſtred by Samaritanes was circumciſion; and not repeated; why not baptiſme miniſtred by an heritique?
Reaſons of Cyprian, keeping euer my reuerence to that glorious Martyr, proue not his purpoſe;Cypri. Epiſt. 72. and let it be no imputation of pride to diſſent from him herein, ſith himſelfe profeſſeth, hee deſired not to fore iudge or preſcribe to any man; but leaues to eueryevery one, libertie of contrarie both iudgement and practiſe: his reaſons are theſe; Heretiques cannot giuegive remiſſion of ſinnes or the holy Ghoſt, ſith themſelues lacke them. Ergo, Epiſt. 70.giuegive not the ſacrament. Anſ. Firſt, the ſtate of the queſtion is changed, for we enquire not ſo much of the efficacie to the receiuers, as of the ſufficiencie of the ſacrament in it ſelfe: ſecondly, ſome anſwere thus; that euen heretiques may be ſaid to hauehave remiſſion of ſinnes, and the holy Ghoſt; though not formally, yet inſtrumentally: thirdly, moſt directly; the conſequence is nought; the ſacrament may be entier in it ſelfe, though the grace of the Sacrament be not giuen by the miniſter. Iohns baptiſme was a Sacrament; yet profeſſeth he not to be giuer of the holy Ghoſt: that dignitie was his whoſe ſeruants we all areqMat. 3.11.. Ob. Heretiques cannot pray to be heard, for God heares no ſinnersrIoh 9.31.. Ergo, Anſ. *Auguſt. cont. Epist. Par. lib. 2. cap. 8.Auguſtine hath three anſweres: firſt, that it is not the ſpeech of our Sauiour, but of the blind man; ſecondly, that if vniuerſally vnderſtood, it croſſeth other ſcriptures, as Luke 18.13 14.
Thirdly, that good prayers put vp by euill men, hauehave audience with God: non pro p…uerſitate propoſitorum, ſed pro deuotione populorum. Balaam bleſſed the people, though an euill man, and ſpeaking againſt the deſire of his heart, yet were his words good, and heard of the Lord in behalfe of the peoplesNumb. 23.
Ob. But will it not hence follow, that haeretical congregations are Churches of God, ſince they hauehave ſacraments ſufficient?
Anſ. Not ſo. Auſtine well ſaith, they hauehave baptiſmum ligitimum, but not legitime; as the theefe hath the true mans purſe. And the Sacraments meerely proue not a Church: if ſeuered from doctrine ſound in the foundation.
And our people may here arme themſelues againſt Anabaptiſticall dreamers; that would nullifie Popiſh Baptiſme, and vrge rebaptization.
It is true, they neuer felt fruit of Baptiſme, till they left communion with Rome; but had the ſacrament in it ſelfe entier, and potentially fruitfull to ſeale vp forgiueneſſe to beleeuers.
Now if hereſie of the Miniſter impaire not the nature of the Sacrament, much leſſe ſhall it hinder the office and efficacie of the Sacrament in the heart of the beleeuer, vvhichwhich hangs vvholly vponupon the promiſe of God; and faith of the recipient, wrought by the ſpirit.
From hereſie let vsus paſſe briefely to other lewdneſſe of the Miniſter, and ſee whether the lewd life, or vnſanctified heart of a Miniſter any whit diminiſh the perfection of the ſacrament in it ſelfe, or hinder the efficacie thereof to vsus.
Theſe queſtions I rather propound, becauſe I ſee they are ſuch as at this day much trouble the church of God. And Lord, that our church were ſo happy as to cut off ſuch ſtumbling blockes from the vveake. It is too true of our Miniſters, many of them, that is ſaid of Elyes ſonnes they hauehave occaſioned the people to abhorre the offerings of the Lordt1 Sam. 2.: I ſay not, but it is the peoples ſinne to abſtaine, yet withall I am ſure it is the heauy ſinne of ſuch Miniſters, that occaſion ſuch abſtinence, from the Lords holy ordinances. To the queſtion.
Some of the reaſons before alledged may hether be applyed, to proue that the lewdneſſe of the Miniſter, detracts nothing from the ſubſtance or efficacie of the ſacrament.
To theſe adde theſe reaſons: firſt, Iudas miniſtred baptiſmeuIoh. 4.2. ſufficient in it ſelfe, I doubt not alſo but effectuallvvMat. 10. to the beleeuing ſuſcipient, yet himſelfe a ſecret infidell, yea a diuell incarnatexIoh. 6.70..
Secondly, Leuites and Prieſts amongſt the Iewes offered ſacrifices, celebrated Sacraments; vvhichwhich to Gods people were ſeales of the Couenant; meanes to nouriſh faith; yet themſelues many of them vnſanctified men. Thirdly, otherwiſe there could be no aſſurance at all to Gods children that any time they receiued a ſacrament; becauſe that ſanctification of the heart, though it muſt be preſumed to be, where the life is but outwardly reformed; yet cannot be knowne certainely, except by ſpeciall reuelation. And what difference there is in this behalfe, betwixt a ſecret, and open prophane man; I ſee not. Fourthly, inſtruments hauehave their efficiency from vertue of the principall mouer; neither can the euilnes of the Miniſter fruſtrate the vertue of Gods ordinance, in the making, or working of the ſacrament.
Auguſt. in Ioan. tract. 5.Ancient Diuines hauehave expreſſed this in ſundry ſimilitudes; as by water that paſſeth through a channell of ſtone into a garden, though the channell it ſelfe receiue no benefit, becauſe of its owne indiſpoſition, yet the garden is made fruitfull. So, &c.
Auguſt. lib. 3. cont. Creſ. Grani. cap. 8. De Bapt. lib. 3. cap. 10.Againe, as in ſowing it matters not whether with cleane hands, or foule, the ſeede be ſowen, ſo it ſelfe be good, the ſoyle fertile, receiue the heate of the Sunne, and benefit of rayne. So &c.
As the light of the ſunne is not defiled, though it paſſe through the dirtieſt place, ſo neither the dignitie nor vertue of Sacraments hindered by lewdnes of the miniſter.
And therefore though I loath ſuch Miniſters as by their lewd life cauſe Gods people to abhorre the Lords ſacrificesy1 Sam. 2.: yet I cannot ſee, with what comfort the people can refuſe Sacraments for the ill demeanour of the Miniſters. Doth any man refuſe a Kings Donation, becauſe a lewd Lawyer drawes vp the conueyance, or deliuers it ſealed in the name of the King?
But I haſten to the third branch, which is ignorance; and here thus propound the queſtion; whether the negligence or vnabilitie of the Miniſter to preach, impeach the ſufficiencie or efficacie of the Sacrament to the beleeuing communicant. This queſtion hath long troubled the Church of God amongſt vsus, and yet diſquieteth ſome men weake in iudgement.
I wiſh with my heart, our Church were ſo happy as to cut off occaſion of this queſtion, by furniſhing it ſelf with able paſtours in eueryevery congregation. But to the purpoſe. The negatiue ſeemes to mee moſt probable; and with all that heate of inueighing, I ſee not yet one argument ſoundly prouing, their actions nullities. And for my iudgement I propound theſe reaſons.
Firſt, it hath been proued that the ill life of the Miniſter preiudiceth not the ſufficiencie of the Sacrament, therefore neither their ignorance: for it is as much required of a Miniſter that hee be foreign; vnreprouable in his life; as that hee be foreign; able and fit to teachz1 Tim. 3.
Secondly, Baptiſme hath been adminiſtred by ſome that had no calling to preach: yea, and that warrantably, and with Chriſts owne allowance the Diſciples of Chriſt; before euer they were ſent out to preach, adminiſtred BaptiſmeaIoh. 3.22. Ioh. 4.2.. And that this was before their ſending to preach, appeares by this, that Chriſt himſelfe began not publikely to preach: till Iohns impriſonmentbMat. 4.12.17.; and at this time when Chriſts Diſciples baptized; Iohn was not impriſonedcIoh. 3.24.. Ergo.
Thirdly, ſome auncient Diuines are of opinion that thoſe to whom Peter enioyned the baptiſing of Cornelius and his company) were no preachersdActs 10.48..Ambroſ. in Epheſ. cap. 4. (Ambroſe ſaith) that Peter had not ſo much as Deacons vvith him, nor did himſelfe baptiſe Cornelius, and thoſe with him, but commanded the brethren, which came vvith him from Ioppa to Cornelius to baptiſe: And the reaſon of his coniecture is more then probable; for as yet beſides the ſeauen Deacons, there was none ordained: The ſame Ambroſe his authoritie in this place*Ambroſ. in 1 Cor. 1.17. is not to be deſpiſed by men of the aduerſe part, for as much as themſelues alleadge him as authenticall for them in the point of Biſhops calling.
Other reaſons will appeare in anſwere to the obiections of the aduerſe part; which are on this manner.
Firſt, eueryevery miniſterie of the new teſtament, is a preaching miniſterie, and therefore ſacraments are nullities that are deliuered by no preachers; for Miniſters onelyonly can giuegive ſacraments. Anſ. Firſt, it will trouble theſe men, I ſuppoſe, to proue that eueryevery miniſterie of the new Teſtament is a preaching Miniſterie: holding their owne
1 Principles: For what thinke they of Deacons and gouerning Elders, muſt they alſo be preachers?
2 What of Doctors, who ſure, if their deſcription of preaching be ſound (as I thinke it is) come not within the compaſſe of preachers?
3 What of thoſe foreign e1 Cor 12., which why I ſhould vnderſtand of aſſiſtent preachers rather then of aſſiſting readers and miniſters of Sacraments, I ſee no reaſon.
The conſequence will not eaſily be proued; for be it granted that by Gods ordinance none ſhould be miniſters, but who are preachers, will it thence follow; that the action of a no preacher is a nullity? by Gods ordinance none ſhould be a Miniſter, but who is a ſanctified man; now if an vnſanctified man hauehave by briberie or fraud thruſt into that holy calling, are his actions therefore meere nullitiesfMat. 23.?
Their ſecond Argument whereby they proue them no Miniſters; is becauſe they wait not on their officegRom. 12.6.7.8.: namely on preaching, the onelyonly eſſentiall propertie of a miniſter.
Anſ. And doth this proue them to be no Miniſters by calling, becauſe they neglect execution? Kings then are no Kings if they vſe not the ſword to puniſh; and their lawfull iniunctions are nullities to the ſubiect, becauſe they faile in the principle worke of their calling, ſhew a deſparitie betweene the two; or elſe learne, they may be Miniſters by office that neglect the execution of their office.
Their third obiection is, that vnpreaching Miniſters ſinne in medling with adminiſtration of Sacraments, becauſe that is a paſtorall function.
Anſ. Firſt, I demaund whether the action it ſelfe for the matter of it be a ſinne in him; or is it his ſinne onelyonly becauſe of the faultie manner of performing? If it be in the latter reſpect onelyonly; that I am ſure will not make his action a nullitie to vsus; and that materially it is no ſinne in him, me thinkes is euident; becauſe euerie man in place of a paſtour is bound to adminiſter Sacraments; yea and by omitting any paſtorall office he layes open himſelfe to Gods wrath, come he in how hee will, whether ordinately, or by intruſion: for in euerie paſtour hath the Lord laide neceſſitie of doing paſtorall offices. Secondly, it remaines yet to be proued, that adminiſtration of Sacraments is ſo appropriated to the perſon of the paſtour, that no other but a compleat paſtour may deale in it.
Certainely in the ancient church Deacons vvere aſſiſtents to the Biſhops and Presbyters, in adminiſtration both of Baptiſme and Euchariſt.
And many ſtiffe in the opinion forenamed,Ambroſ. de officijs bib. 1 cap. 41. vſe help of others in publike reading, praying, catechizing, who by office are no paſtours. Laſtly, I would gladly hauehave this conſulted of by my Brethren differing from vsus in iudgement. What the word of God hath againſt this; the ordayning and ſetting a part of ſome perſons, to publike reading, praying, administration of Sacraments, who yet ſhould not be permitted to deale in publique preaching. Surely, ſome ſuch order appeares to hauehave beene amongſt the Leuites and Prieſts of the old Tabernacle. And M. Iunius ſeemes to acknowledge the employment of Deacons this vvay in the primitiue Church,Animaduerſ. in cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 13. Bellar. partly for eaſe of paſtours, partly, for their owne triall.
With what vvarrant of the word they may be called to a Paſtours office that know not how in ſome meaſure to diuide the word aright, I ſee not; but if ſome men lacking the gift of propheſie be admitted to ſome other inferiour ſubordinate ſeruice in the Church, I ſee not what the church doth herein repugnant to the ſcriptures, prouided alwayes they poſſeſſe not the place of paſtours.
Thus farre of theſe controuerſies, entred into as God can witneſſe with my ſoule, not to iuſtifie the boldneſſe or ignorance of ſuch as hauehave without gifts thruſt into the paſtours office; but to remoue the vniuſt and cauſeleſſe ſcruples of vveake conſciences, that deeming their actions nullities, hauehave almoſt reſolued of rebaptization; and vtterly refuſe Sacraments at the hands of vnpreaching Miniſters. Their deſire to hauehave true ſeales ſet to their pardon, I blame not; but their refuſall of Gods ſeales for ignorance or negligence of the keepers, who can defend?
To theſe may be added, that other quaere betwixt vsus and Browniſts, whether a man may vvith comfort of conſcience partake the Sacraments with thoſe aſſemblies wherein open ſinners are tolerated to participate; ſo that he ſhall not partake with them in their ſinnes, nor any way hinder his owne benefit by theſe and like workes of religion.
Here againe I could wiſh the executours of Church Diſcipline would be awaked, and not ſuffer the prophane drunkard and adulterer to touch things ſo holiehMat. 7.. And my Brethren the Miniſters to diſcerne betwixt the precious and the vileiIer. 15.19.: that the hearts of the righteous be not made ſad by ſuch promiſcuous promiſing and ſealing vp life to the wicked: howbeit, it ſhould be farre from euerie honeſt heart; to ſeparate from aſſemblies wherein ſuch abuſes are tolerated through negligence; or therefore to refuſe to vſe their owne right, becauſe vſurpers vniuſtly intrude thereon.
For the queſtion; beſt Diuines both auncient and moderne thus reſolue, that in aſſemblies, vvhere the word and worſhip of GOD is kept pure for ſubſtance, there may be a comfortable participating of Sacraments; yea though by conniuence of gouernors ſome inordinate walkers be admitted.
Reaſons, ſome of them are theſe: Firſt, Paul k1 Cor. 5.11.28.29., preſcribing an order of due preparation to ſacraments, wiſheth vsus to examine our ſelues, not others: now if hee had thought it vnlawfull to communicate with others that are vnworthy, he would hauehave giuen charge, with as great circumſpection, to looke to others as to trie our ſelues: ſecondly, the ſame Apoſtle limites the crime and penalty of vnworthy receiuing, to the perſons ſelfe that partakes vnworthily, verſe 29. By vnworthy communicating he brings iudgement on himſelfe not vponupon others: thirdly, examples of Prophets liuing in corrupteſt times of the Church; yet not ſeparating from the publike aſſemblies, where was the word of GOD, and ceremonies of Gods owne Inſtitution; but in the middeſt of a polluted people lifting vp pure hands and pure hearts vntounto God: fourthly, practiſe of Chriſt & his Apoſtles, in extremitie of Phariſaicall licence and ſuperſtition; yet aſſembling to the ſame temple with the wicked themſelues, vntounto publique exerciſes of religion. More I will not adde. The obiections of the aduerſe part ſhall hauehave a ſhort ſolution; and ſo a paſſage to the next.
Obiect. They alleadge, 1 Cor. 5 11. with ſuch eate notl1 Cor. 5.11.: 2 Cor. 6.17. Iſay 52.11. come out from among themm2. Cor. 6.17., touch no vncleane thingnIſay 52.11..
Anſ. *Calu. Inſtit. lib. 4 cap. 1. Sect. 5.Our Diuines thus anſwere; firſt, that the places ſome of them ſpeake of fellowſhip with them in workes of darkneſſeoEpheſ. 5.7.11., by comparing, Epheſ. 5 7.11. ſecondly, that they are meant of priuate familiaritie or amitie with ſuch; and thirdly, that onelyonly as it tends to countenance them in their euill.
It is true ſaith*Auguſt. de ver. Dom. ſecundum Mat. cap. 18. ſub finem. Auguſtine; that the Prophet ſaid plainely, come out from amongſt them, ſeparate your ſelues, touch no vncleane thing. Ego vt intelligam quid dixit, attendo quod fecit, by his fact hee expounds his ſpeech. He ſaid depart; to whom ſaid hee it? ſurely to the righteous: from whom ſhould they depart? ſurely from ſinners and vniuſt. I enquire whether himſelfe departed from ſuch, and I finde, that he departed not. Therefore hee meant otherwiſe, viz. then of a bodily ſeparation: for ſure hee would be the foremoſt in doing, that himſelfe commanded: he ſeparated in affection; obiurgauit at que arguit: continendo ſe a conſenſu, non tetegit immundum obiurgando autem exijt liber in conſpectu Dei, cui ne que ſua Deus imputat peccata; quia non fecit; ne que aliena quae non approbauit; neque negligentiam, quia non tacuit, neque ſuperbiam quia in vnitate manſit. Sic ergo fratres mei quotquot habetis inter vos, &c. If you hauehave any amongſt you loden with louelove of the world, couetous, periurers, adulterers, &c. as much as in you lyes improue them, that in affection and heart ye may depart from them. Reproue them, that ye may goe out from amongſt them: and conſent not vntounto them, that ye may touch no vncleane thing.
Thus farre*Auguſt. cont. Donat. Auguſtine againſt old Donatiſts, whoſe proud ſchiſme Browniſts amongſt vsus hauehave reuiued.
Yea, let God be true, and eueryevery man a lyar.Verſe 4.
The former concluſion is here proued by a reaſon, as I take it, a fortiori: God is true in his promiſe and couenant; though eueryevery man be in part vnfaithfull; therefore the vnfaithfulneſſe of ſome few in the church aboliſheth not the fidelitie of God in his promiſe. The Antecedent is proued by a ſpeech of Dauid pPſal. 51,. The accommodation of this place is diuers, ſome referre it to Dauids petitionqVerſe 4., waſh me &c. that thou mayeſt be iuſtified, id est: that thou mayeſt be acknowledged iuſt and true in thy promiſes. Some to Confiteor, I acknowledge my wickedneſſe, &c. that thou mayeſt be iuſtified. Some to peccaui, I hauehave ſinned, that thou mayeſt be iuſtified
And this ſauing other mens better iudgement, I take to be the connexion agreeableſt to the Apoſtles purpoſe, and the words of the obiection following.
Queſt. Was this then Dauids end in ſinning? Anſ. Not ſo: not Dauids end in committing; but the Lords end in permitting his ſinne: ſecondly, the particle (that) notes not alwayes the intention but the euent. Ʋt ſit ſenſus, I hauehave ſinned by thy iuſt permiſſion; out of which ſinne, this one thing hath followed, the illuſtration and magnifying of the glory of thy truth, in as much as euen to me dealing vnfaithfully in thy Couenant, thou keepeſt promiſe and merciemercy. And this mee thinkes firſt agrees with the Apoſtles ſcope, and hath an argument a fortiori to proue the concluſion of the Apoſtle; mans infidelitie aboliſheth not the truth of God, nay which is more it ſerues to illuſtrate and commend it, as one contrarie ſet by another: ſecondly, it ſuites with the obiection enſuing; which is this, our vnrighteouſnes commends the righteouſnes of God.
Obſer. 1 See we what may hence be gathered: firſt, I thinke it is hence ſoundly collected, that particular vnfaithfulneſſe cuts no man off from the Couenant of grace: GOD is true in performing his promiſe, though euerie man; yea his own children be in part vnfaithfull.
Particular vnfaithfulneſſe; I thus interpret; that which is ſhowne in ſome particular acts of vnfaithfulneſſe: as in Dauids adulterie and murther, &c. groſſe fals, and ſuch as deſerued vtter reiection from Gods louelove, yet through Gods pardoning mercy, no ſeparating ſinnes: ſecondly, ſuch as wherein the committer is in part a patient as*Bernard de Nat. & dig. Amoris diuini. cap. 6. patitur peccatum non facit. Bernard interpreteth; becauſe with the whole heart he ſinneth not, but hath euer ſome reluctation againſt the temptation; ſome diſlike after the committingrRom. 7.: See the reaſonssMal. 3.17. Pſal. 89.32.33..
Ʋſe. Therefore they are iniurious to the comfort of Gods Saints, that teach eueryevery groſſe ſinne waſting the Conſcience, to throw them for the preſent, vtterly out of Gods fauour. It is true that till repentance, ſenſe of fauour is loſt: yet euen then when the Lord turnes towards vsus the anger of his countenance, is he a gracious God and father vntounto vsus. Yea, his very anger ariſeth from louelove, and tends to good.
Now if any ſhould hence emboulden himſelfe to commit ſinne; let me ſay what I thinke; hee giues euidence that he neuer yet came within Gods Couenant; but if by infirmitie any hauehave been ouertaken; let him not from particular ſlips conclude his throwing out of the Couenant; God is ſtill a father, and Chriſt an aduocatet1 Ioh. 2.1.2..
That thou mayeſt be iuſtified, &c.] Very ſinne it ſelfe Obſer. 2 turnes in the iſſue to the glorie of God: had we euer had ſo glorious a monument of Gods power and iuſtice, had not Pharaoh in his pride and obſtinacie propoſed to Gods commanduExod. 9.15.16? It was foelix culpa, ſaith Gregory of Adams fall (iudging of it by the iſſue) that made way for ſuch a redeemer as was Chriſt the Lord. In a word; God glorifies his merciemercy in pardoning, his iuſtice in puniſhing, his power in ouer-ruling, his wiſedome in ordering the very ſinnes of men and diuels.
May he not then, Vſe. without impeachment of his goodneſſe, permit ſinne to be? that knowes out of it to bring ſo much glory to himſelfe? It is true that Austin hath, the omnipotent God would neuer ſo much as ſuffer euill to be done, but that he knowes to bring good out of euill.
There is nothing ſo abſolutely euill, but eyther hath or may admit ſome reſpects of goodnes. And whether they more diſhonour God, that teach an idle ſpeculation of the euill deeds of men, and erect a power of committing ſinne, countermaunding Gods power in preuenting it, or they that aſcribe to him a voluntarie permitting of it for his owne glorie, let Gods Church iudge.